.^^.. ..J' ^tf^^^y ^ -^^'@-gg^^ T -s7^i ^ c^ ^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. CC). N0^ ^ SSM OF 2011 PETmONERS ^' / / / ^^9^ / </ / ^y/^ wy" /^ /r ^ Av> -</ ,/?y ^. ^' ^ RESPONDENTS :1. Harivansh bubey, aged about 73 years S/o Late Jagatdhari Dubey, 2. Bhupnath Dubey, S/o Late Jagatdhari bubey, aged about 66 years, 3. Virendranath Dubey, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Chhabinath bubey. 4. bevendranath Dubey, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Chhabinath Dubey, 5. Vinod Dubey, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Chhabinath Dubey, 6. Shailendranath Dubey, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Ramvriksha Dubey, All by caste Bramhan, R/o Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1: State of Chhattisgarh throu9h Secretary, Revenue bepartment, b.K-S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.6.) 3. Tahsildar Ambikapur, bistt. Sur9uja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTECLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. an^T-BCTlyrw 'cTm 3?T^{ ^rrfe HWWI »><n^i '3'sr ^i'qKn^, ^Ti1^<i(o, [stdl-^^< ..l^b..<^2.t^G.:...'?^.5fc^ 200 ^n^r T^w (^cii^<s<^^ ^nw^if^a^T WSTf^Pft;T "RTTT^ff ^f f^€l><f^^l< ^3tRw3?^r SB : Hon'ble Shri IVianindra IVIoban Shrivastava. J. 05-12-2011 + Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Goverij for the petitioners. ment Advocate for the State onadvance copy. This petition has been fil^d by the petitioners for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 to settle / aliot ti|ie land in dispute in the name of the petitioners in view of the order passed by the ^oard of Revenue (Annexure P/1). The petitioners have also prayed for quashingj encroachment proceedings proceeded against them vide notice (Annexure P/4).| Learned counsel for the pjetitioners submits that in the past, encroachment proceedings were drawn and firtally, the Board of Revenue passed an order on 20/07/1984 hoiding that the pr^visions contained in Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code was not appjic^)ie at the time of alleged encroachment. Now, fresh proceedings have been iijiitiated by the Tahsiidar in respect of the same property. He also submits th^t after the order was passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners have a^ the year 1992 buttili date, the m^tter has remained penciing. Taking into considerati^ plied for settiement of the above land way back in n the grounds on which the encroachment proceedings were held iliegal (>y the Board of Revenue, 1 am not inciined to interfere at this stage particularjy when the petitioner has oniy replied the notice and Tahsildar has not taken ar^y decision till date. in case, the petitioners are aggrieved by any specific orde|r of Tahsildar or any other revenue authority, it would be open for them to take law. As far as petitioners' claj ecourse to remedy as may be availabie under the m for grant of ailotment is concerned, the same i'._^.sj3all..b@..jdecided_^Yj:heJ]^jh|s^ with law, notwithstanding ^ n^rwr^-?.s/i 40—2/201i—i ,50,000. -~-—— J^^^^ ^^r'^ 11 'S^f ^ww^, ^>Ti1^<i(o, f^dl'M^< ..i^p(€-21^'^^ ftf *<I*ICTI a»*<ich'""""T""~"""""""""""""""""^[200 ^TT^?T 'q'^W (<icl^<s<<^) an^r^T^n^ 'cw^n^^Tife Deepti ^^TTW^f^T 3^1 -<?. pendency of the case, in the ligl' The concerned authority shail ta» period offour months from the dal With the aforesaid observa i( of the order passed by the Board of Revenue. decision on petitioner's representation within a of receipt of copy of this order. tions, the petition is finaily disposed off. ^^^?r^9;^^^^^TOT --Jl-S/i40--2/2011—3,50,000. CM<lfci<fll 'RFT^ff ^* 'f^St <ps1^1< ^3?fhH3TT^r Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge