HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0.878 OF 2009 PETITIONER Non-Applicant No.1 RESPONDENTS Jagsai, S/o Latehman Sahu, aged about yeare, R/o Vill^e Khokhari, Tahsil Pamgarh, DistrictJanjgir-Chgmpa (CG). Versus Smt. Samundbai, W/o Soncharan Sahu, R/o village Khokhari, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dlstrict Janjgir-Champa (CG). MoUbal,D/o SoncharanSahu, R/o vlllage Khokhan, TahsilPatngarh.DistrictJanjgir- Champa (CG). Appltcants 3. Dhanbai, W/o Soncharan Sahu, R/o village Kasdol, Tahsil Kasdol, Disfaict Raipur(CG). Non-applicant No.2 Smt. UkeshSahu, D/o SoncharanSahu, R/Q viltage Kasdol, Tahsil Kasdol, Disbict Raipur (CG). Non-applicant No.3 State of Chhaffisgarh, through the Collector, Distrlct Janjgir-Ghampa (CG). Non-applicant No.4 OWrit petition under Artcle 227 of the ConsUtution of India) Single Bench : Hon'hleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 4. 5. Present:- ShriOarmesh Shrhrastava, counsel for thepetltioner. ShriBhaskarPayasi,PanelLawyerfortheState. ORALORDER (Passed on this 11'" day of February, 2009) Leamed counsel appearing for the pefiUoner subfflits thattheBoard of Revenue without consklering the relevant facts of thecase altowed the appeal and confirmed the Qrders passed by the Nayab Tahsitelar and the Sub Divisional OfBcer. The findjng ofthe Nayab Tahsiklar is confraiy to well settled principles of law. If the pefitiQner has failed to prove that alleged fauft has not been established thenthe sale deed has to be accepted. ' 2) Bethat as itmay, since the dispute raised herein cannot be decided in revenue proceedings. The petftioner, onhis reqyest, is^ranted^libertyto takerecoursetojurisdicfionalcivilCourtforappropriatereliefinthematter. 3) In view ofthefO!regoing,theRetitionstandsdjsp<»edof. 4) Consequently, I.A.No.1 also stands disposed oL SatfehK.Agniho^, Judge