1 M mGH GOURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR PETITIONER Writ Petition No. 3198 of 2006 Fatte Ram S/o Buchua Sahu, aged about 68 years, R/o village Paijaaia, Tahsil L6mii, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 2. Collector, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 4. Bahorik Ram S/o Devgiri R/o village Paijania, Tah. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri M.K. Baeg, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 4th day ofDecember, 2008) 1, The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the legality and validity ofthe order dated 31.01.2006 (Annexure P/5), passed by the Board ofRevenue in Revision No. R.N. /02/R/A-13 49/2006 ,whereby the order dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure P/4), passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, and order dated 30.11.98 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi (for short 'the SDO') were upheld and the revision was rejected. 2. The SDO, Lormi, in appeal case No. 80/A-13/96-97, against the order dated 07.08.97, passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Lormi, directed the petitioner not to create obstruction in respect of Khasra Nu. 689/1 Area 2.5 Acres, which was used as customary right by the respondent No. 4 for more than 7-8 years. It was found that that the obstruction created by the petitioner was illegal and unauthorized. The order passed by the Naib Tahsildar was set aside. 2 fc ^) Sahu Being aggrieved, the petitionei- preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur. The Additional Collector, after having considered all aspects of fhe matter, dismissed the appeal on 28.12.2005 (Annexure P/4), upholding the order dated 30.11.98 (Annexure P/3) passed by the SDO. The Additiohal Collector agreed with the findings recorded by the SDO. 4. Beitig aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Revision before fhe Board of Reveiiue. The Board of Revenue, after having considered all aspects of the matter, came to conclusion that the petitioner was in illegal possession ofthe property in dispute bearmg KhasraNo. 689/1 Area 0.01 Hect. Thus, the diirecfion to remove fhe structure and ftof to create obstruction in the customary right ofthe respondent No. 4 was upheld. Accordingly, revision was also dismissed. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. I have found that the authorities'below have appreciated all the relevant facts aud have come to the right couclusion tllat the petitioner was in illegal possession ofthe land in dispute and created obstruction in the Gustomary rights ofthe respondent No. 4. 6. I have nOt found any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the brder passed by fhe authorities below. The evidences were properly appreciated and the findiugs were accordingly recorded. 7. This Court, in exercise ofitssupervisoryjurisdictionunderArlicle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, exeept ia such cases where perversity, illegality, utegularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, whicU is notinthepresentcase. . 8. The impugned orders are jusf, proper and unexceptionable. Thus, no interference is warranted. The petition is aGcordmgly dismissed at motion stagg;_ _ '.- ,' Sd/- SafishK.Agmtiotn Judge