,fvtS^ 'BtS^51 \is t .-.-"^~a'^a /y^ wy@- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C| No.^^^' /2006 PETITIONER Gulpat Rai aged about 65 years,^ S/o Laharu R/o Mukanipur, Gram Panchayat, Tahsil Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.. The State of Chhattisgarh,/ ^-:"^. ..<»•„ through Secretary, Panchayat and ^w y^- ^ay^ ?.-'$:.%;>--" Rural Department, D.K. S Bhawan , Raipur "-•";,^T^" y<^-"~ 'Sf-' >'' 2. The Director, Panchayat, Raipur 3. The Additional Collector, Janjgir Champa. -^ ^y'\r ^- •^y <^- <p 4. 5. 6. 7. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti Distt. Jasjgir Chasipa Up Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat /' Hasod, Tahsil Jaijaipur Distt. Janjgir Champa. Narsingh Sinha aged about 3 1 < years, S/o Nandram Sinha, R/o Village Hasod Tahsil Jaijaipur Distt. Janjgir Champa Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur Distt. Janjgir J la ^*i. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^ AIH3T 2^ OF THE COSSTITVTIOS OF IKFDIA HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT KILASPUR <-. .&. Writ Petition OT No. 6396 of 2006 Petitioner fiulpat Rai Versus Reqiondents The Stixte of Chhatt-isgflrh A others Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agmhctri. Shri Panig Kotecha, counsel for -the Petitioner. Shri Satish 6upta, t)y. 6ovt. Advocate for the re^wnckwits No. 1 to 4/5-tate. ORDER O'assed on 21st November, 2006) 1. The petitioner was on elect'ed Sarpanch of 6ram Panchayat Haaid, Block Jaijaipur &istrict Juijgir-Champa. By order dated 24.7.2006 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner vws removed from the post of 5drponch under Section 40 (l) of •the Chhatt-isgarh Panchayat Rgj Avam 6ram Swaroj Athiniyam, 1993 on •the ground that he had encroached upon •the Sovemment lond. 2. Bemg aggrieved, the petitioner had fited wrrt' petition No. 4284/2006, impugning Ihe order ctated 24.7.2006, passed by -the Sub-Divisional Officer (Rewnue) Sakti bistt-. Jonjgir-Champa (Reqiondent No. 4 herein). This Court- after hearmg teamed counsel for the petitioner, therein, and other parties ond leamed coimsel.for respondent No. 3 as caveator observed •that -there was an altematwe, efficacious remedy wailable to the petitioner under Rule 3 of •t+ie Chhatt'isgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Reviswn) Rules, 1995. The petition was accordin9ly dismissed vide order dated 14.8.2(X)6, as not maintamable. /' 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an cppeal against -the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by -the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Jonjgir-Champa before the Additional Collector, Jonjgir-Champa in Revenue Appeal Case No. 256/A-89/05-06. The Additional Collector, while exercising his power as an appelhte authority, set aside the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Sub &ivisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti Wsn. Janjgir-Champa and allot»e<l the appeat in fwour of the petitioner. 4. Being oggrieved, the re^iondent No. 6 filed a revision before the &ipeetor, Panchayot, Sovemment of OnhaWsgarh, Raipur in Revision Cose No. 135/A-89/05-06. The Director on 4.10.2006 orf~ter hearin9 both 'the porties, dtectined to 9ront stay of the order passed by -the Additionat Colleet-or. 5. Notwithstondng the facts that the order of -Hie AddHional Collector dated 13.9.2006 has been passed in favour of the petitioner, which has not been stoyed by the Oirector, Panchoyat, Chharttisgarh, Raipur, and further the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Sociat Welfare, Jonjgir-Champa has already dipected the Chief Executive Officer, Jonpad Panchoyat, Jaijaipur bish-ict Jcnjgir-Chainpa by fetter dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure P/7) to comply with the orders passed by the Additional Collector, it is aibmitted Ihut the concemed resfwndent has not comptied with the ordfer, 6. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition vnder Articfe 226 & 227 of the Consti+utiwi of Indki seeking execution of the order pcissed by the Colfector. It appears that the petitioner has not made any attempt by goin9 back to the Collector/birector, seeking compliance of their orders. 7. This Court, while exercising its jurisdictjon under Articte 226 d 227 of the Constilution of India caawiot act- as an executing Court-. In fcct, there should not be any grievance to the petitioner as the order dated 13.9.2006 has been passed 'vn favour of the petitiorwr. /^ ^^ 4 8. Thus, -this writ petition is cksvoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed as not maintoAwble. Ho(»ever, m the facts and circumstonces of •ttie case, the petitioner is at liberty to take oppropriate steps before approprkxte forum seekmg execution of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the Additional Collector in appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to c»sts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge SiAhask