c^r ^) IN THE H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPNO. S /2003 PETITIONER .•• -• ,»•' 7.-<^s*k' (^^ o'^-/ ..^y ^J^?"' y^> y Jatangiri, aged about 85 years, son of Shri Puran Giri, resident of village - Dadargaon, Pithora, Tah. Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund. (C.G.) Through : Power of Attomey, Lakhan Giri, son of Shri Jatangiri, aged about 48 years resident of village Dadargaon, Hthora, Tah Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^ I*^.^.?^ 1 '{^t^ki '^ ^y 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Board of Revenue, Government of Chhattisgarh, Circuit Court, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Collector, Mahasamund (CG) 4. The Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), Mahasaruund (CG) 5. The Additional TahsUdar, Tah. Pithora, distt. Mahasamund (Cg) 6. The 'Settlement Officer, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 7. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Simga, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 8. Ramji son ofjhaduram, resident of village Dadargaon, P.H.N. 19, Board of Revpnue Pithora, Tah and Distt. Mahasamund (CG) 9. Raghunath' Pratap singh, son of Shri Madan Singh, resident of -swmx WifVTT^^ '';'. i -o o 713 Qwam K! o <:L, (L,,,|| €.,„. c: 5>. 3I:;l o Ll-i ~"t- f(!i <;a c-i (:s t.ft. u:;>o § o C;a Ifl ta (:: t]l'!l ':•' S:l! •J^ 6 m "1 ;j. -o 10 10 10 10 Itd ]3a>. ](...) Itft ]<?> DB- 1» \1>- N' a a ;!..,.< r\ia o.-s- r rss S9w >oo6 OB IM If'"" |3;>. Itft -o LJT/*1H COURT OF 3U&ICAWRE. CHHATHSSARH AT BIL4SPUR Writ Petition No. of 2003 Fatangiri 'v'ersus ^ State of Chhutt'isgarh aid others r'resent: i i i ! 5hri Asqar Ali, Counsel fo" 1+)e petitioner. Q_ Jl ^assed ong^y_January, 2004) A! yLX. idoo J. The petitioner has preferreii this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India beifig aggrieved by the order dated 16-7-2003, ^ Annexure-P/5, passed by the Board of Revenue by which the Boar^ of tevenue dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of Collector dated 14-1-2003. Irief facts leading to filing of this petition are that +he petitionSriiS! the rssident of viltage Dadargaon, Tehsiland District flAahasamund and!iS!|(i| , Blroomiswami of Khasro No. 97, rakba 1.222 hec'tares. Under the settl^^it)^'] proceeding Khasrg No.97 was re-numbered in 7 new khasraa:andHin,i||tt'ia|',h:|! process as per the allegations of the petitioner 0.11 hectares^opl petitioner's land was recorded as government iand specially which iwas •dme water. 3.. ' Jhe petitioner made an application before respondenf l|36.7j',^| decision wasgiven in his favour on 1-3-1997 asper Annexure-P4|^|^|i| was filed by resporidents 8 md 9 before: the Set'i-lement Settlement Officer set-aside the order pdssed b^ pesf D'iill:;!: iE^!::.i:i li^^.y'^^ aii 't^O <<? forwarded the matter to the Additional Tehsildar, Pithora for hearing the partiesand deciding the mo.tter. 4. The Additiohal Tehsildar conducted on enquiry and held that Khasro No.163/1, rakba 0.53 hectares is government land and Khasra N0.163/2, rakba 0.11 hectares belongs to the petitioner aid for passing the orders the Additional Tehsildar forwarded the matter •t'o the Sub Divisional Officer. 'he Sub bivisional Officer v-ide order dated 12-7-2002 held that on account of chaiae of Khasra No.Q7convertina into seven new k-hasras the petitioners lcnd has exceeded by 2.23 acres land which should be recorded as jovernment, whic-h is not disputed and aiong with that new asra No.163/2, rakbu 0.11 hectares should also be recorded as gover'nfflent land. The order' is Annexure-P/3. Tne petitione" preferred ai appeal before the Collector and fne same was dismissed. TTie Revenue Board aiso dismissed the appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. Asgar ^li, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The learned counsei for the petitioner submitt'ed 1+iat the orders of fne Board of Revenue, Coliector and the S.D.O. are erroneous and 1-hey have wrongty held that the laid in question is a government tand. 8. I have perused the orders. A perusal of the order Annexure-P/3 dated 12-7-2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer reveals that seven new khasra numbers were given to Khasra No.97 and on account of that there was some difference occurred in the Sand, ds the original Khasra No.97 was of 1.222 hectares, whereas in the settlement proceeding that khasrs number was converted into seven new khasros and the land of seven new khasrds has been recorded as 2.12 hectares, thereby the !and of the petitibner has exceeded by 2 acre 23 decimai. In para 4 of the orde" it is recor|ded 1^ist adjacent to the original Khasra No.97, Khasro Nos. 98 and 99 we|re there which was a oovernment forest land in which big bushes were standiqig fflndlby adding some piece of lemd from Khasra Nos.98 and 99, asra No.9^ h'aS been ^ JL.J..J iarve converted into new khasras and on account of that the area has exceeded by 2 acre 23 decimat. It has further observed that the Revenue Inspector has reported in his inspection report that the following Khasra numbers were recorded in the revenue records:- 165/2, 165/3, 167/2. 168/2, 169/2, 170/2 aid 175/1 and forestlaid of big bushes cannot be given to any'one. Since, the forest la"d of big bushes has been added m fne old Khasra No.97 thereby the iand of the petitioner has been exceeded by 2 acres 23 decimal. Same view has taken by -rtie Coilector and the Revenue Board whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitt-ea' that the finding is erroneous and contra-ry to the factua! position on i+ie ground. 10. In vtew of the above facts. I find that the disputed facts are inyolved in this matter. As per the orders of the S.&.O., Co'iector and the Board of ftevenue on aecouht of change of K'hasra Number some forest laid of bk bushes 2 acres 23 decimai was-wrongly udded to the land of the petitioner and the same was governmentjand, therefore, that should be corrected. 1-1 A A In v'iew of the above disputed facts, the matter cainot be enquired into and no enquiry cai be made in 1+ie writ jurisdiction, therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance against the orders by 1+ie Board of Revenue, Coliector and the Sub Divisional Officer the proper remedy for him was to upproach the civii Court. If he is so advised he cai approach the civil ^Jourt. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition staids disposed of. / x SdA / I-.C;BHADOO Judge'