CU IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE-CHHA'CTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. ^L.^-[ / 2006 SlnniB R. Petitioners 10 ^^/ ,'d^/'" --• ^^>y/ ^y^y ^y'y ^e/ y 1. Ram Narayan S/o Khaderan Sao 2. Sanjay / S/o Ramnarayaa Sao, 3. Raju S/o RamnarayanSao, 4. Rakesh S/o Ratnaarayan- Sao, Aged about 22 years, All R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, ^ Tahsil - Pal, Dist : Sarguja-jC.G. Versus Respondents .co^ ^ 6^ ^^' 1. ^ 2. 3. ^ 4. <- 5. State of ChhatttsgacK Through The Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer [ Ramanujganj, | Dist: Sarguja-(C.G.j ^ Tehsildar Ramanujganj TehsU - Pal, Dist: Sarguja-(C.G.) Station House OfiBcer, Police Statiou Ramanujganj Dist: Sarguja-(C.G.j Sargeet Kumar Gupta -S/o Ramnarayan Sao, R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, WardNo.Il, Dist: Sarguja-(C.G.) ^ WMT EETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTEFUTION QF INDIA -22 tl?r°i;r fTSiT^T sRtlfttT 3^ •<ll'i(l<')<<, BlTntl'l?, Rctiy^ *imw (ti*ii«i 3ll^l Msi<h ^^f..^..^th.(,.. W( 200 t^'ti.d 3(1^1 ^wiwafer 1A V. -I . lorter Shri Arw Shukta, Adwcatel 5hri Ashutosh Singh Kachi^a? No.l to 4. Petitioner No.l-Rani Narayat !y this petition the petiti cor'rectness of the order dated 2i (ftevenue), ftamanuj9anj jn Case Divisional Officer hcs directed Office.r, Police Station Rcmanujgo[ij help to ensure that he enters the) the articies tying in the house. The gr-ievance of the petit passed contrary to law. It hos be^n tde betn since respondent No.5 wos invoive^ <_lfrt^^t^< atmosphere(was ruined, therefor^ thbt <tn gwe Rs.24,700/- as per demand promised before the Panchoyct back in the parentat houss. Even VMS a!so executed. Based on the order and directed that responde^it of the house where the petitioner^ I have perused the docurhe between the petitioner' No.l, fatfi^ +i''<rri41-) w^vffii te^il <Rit<i< ^^ri^rsn^T |for the petitioner's. Kachi^awaha, &ovt. Advocate for the respondents ji is a'so present in Court. has questioned the legality, propr'iety and 3.2006 passed by the Sub &ivi3iona! Officer |No.l05B-121/05-06 whereby ieorned Sub Tehsildar, RomanuJ9anj & Station House >nujgo(ij that respondent No.5 herein be provided house and they should prepare o list obout oners is thot the impugned order has been mentioned in Para 5.3 of the petition that in iliegal activities aa a result of which the i, in the interest of famiiy, tha petitioner of respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 he wili vacote the house and nevar return agraement dated 31.7.2003 to that effect ora! evidence, the S&O passed the iwpugned .5 be put in the possession of the room are residinq. dated 31.7.2003, which WQS executed r of respondent .5 and respondent No.5 in JL XI-HC-22 311^1 qiT R-ii+sn^T aiiwylea c ^ f 3^'.<ii<)i<'i<i eiTntf'Kp, Rldlti^ 3TT^?T <ra^l HIIWI shiirai f, Wi; 200 Rt)«Si 3<i^;;i ewiiwflfer which respondant No.5 hos ci Rs.24,700/- in lieu of vacating th« before 31.7.20)4. Respondent No.5 foiled to of notice. When respondent No.5 a9r'eemerrt on the stamp paper therefore, it is not known that for the possession of house and r has directed the Tehsildar respondent No.5 is put in posses residing. If there wos at a!l any hs ought to have filed civil suit and without the decision of same cs ineffective and inoperative th| he!d to be a legai order. Therefore, ths order in-ipu is iiabie to be quashed ond it is he With the dforesaid, the pe| =ni<<tci41-l *ll>ldTftte<ft<Rl<<ll<. ^ail^tTan^T (tegorically admitted that he has token house within a period of 10 months i.e. on or |oppear befpre this Court in spite of service |imseif took the money ond execute ths |of Rs.30/- thot he will vacate the house, h^w thereafter respondent No.5 was entitled (loreover, under which provision iearned S&0 Station House Officer to ensure that i^ion of the house where the petitioners ara :loim of respondent No.5 claiming possession, tlegarding dec!aration of right and possession ^nd dec!aring the agr'eement doted 31.7.2003 impu9ned order possed by the S&O cannof j^ned is passed without any basis of law, same ition stands disposed of. Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo judge (<ft^^ir) r