1 ! HlGjH coURT oE‘CHHATTisGARH AL BILASPUR ' l >di'am: _ / Hoh’ ble shri Dhirendra Mis‘hra, Hdn’ ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, J‘ Writ AQQeal No. 55 of 2010 1 asant Baboo Son of Jhukhu,\_aged bout 50 years. 1 ‘ K B a GodeshwariiBai,éwife of Purro, aged about 28 years. K Blthawan Bal Wife of Thanwar, aged about 53 years No 1 to 3 are cultrvators resrdents of Village Umana Tah Bllha Dist Bllaspur Ponnabal wrfe of Bhuwan aged bout 48 years cultrvator of Belpurr Kablrl Bar w/o Gala aged about45 years Cultivator r/o Pedrkapa Au are residents of Tahsn' an t District Bilaspur (CG). Dasmatl Bal wrfe of notknown rlo Barahl Tah Mungeh Dlstnct Bilasp’ur (CG). , Aggeuadts (Respondents) Vs. 1. Kaprldeo S/o Bhuwanlal Satnaml of Mou1a Godhr Tah & Drstnct Bilaspu. Resgondent A N (Petitioner in.W. . o. 579 of 1987. _ ¥(respondents o 579 of 1987 in W A 2 AdditionalCollector,Biiaspur. ‘ 3. D O. Bilaspur. S x (Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) OF Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to DiViSion Bench)Act 2006 ‘ se Prent \ Shri DR Sharma Sr counsel wrth the appellants , Ms. Swati' Shukla, counsel for _ ' orai'Orcier (Passed on'ihis 16‘“ day of March, 2010) & J C . d -- r s N ‘ * Pér-Dhir‘endra Mishra, J. Thiie, ‘writ appéa! is directed against thé judgment dated 5-11-2009 ' passed in1'M P No 579 of 1987 whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No 1 has been allowed and the order dated 31-3-1986 passed by the Additional Collector Bllaspur has been set aside and the order ‘ passed by the Sub DiVIsIonaI OfFcer has been restored 2) After carefully examining the records of the writ court the orders passed by the Sub DIVismnal Officer as well as the Additional Collector we are of the opinion that the Additional Collector Bilaspur was not Justified in ‘ \W directing the appellant to pay the difference of amount to the respondent l and set aSIde the order of the Sub DiViSional Offcer directing restoration of the possessmn of land in exerCIse of power under sub-section (2) of Section 7iof the M.P. (Ch’hattisgarh) Samai’Ke KamjorVargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi .Hadapane, Sambandhi Kuchakron Se ‘Paritran Tatha ‘Mukti Adhiniyam 1976, Without aSSigning any reason for passmg such order and the writ petition preferred by the respondent has been rightly allowed We do not find any substance in this appeal 3) The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed i4) No order as to costs. ‘ Sdl- y ’1 Judge ‘ 1-: l Dhlrendra MlShra L t l