ya HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition [ C) No. 95212010 Petinoner: 1. State of Chhafh'sgarh, thmugh “the Collsctor, Durg (C.G~). Vast“ Regpondents 1. Boatd of Revenue, Chhatlisgarh, Bilaspur (Cimuit Court, Raipur -. (CG) through its Registrar. 2. Darbarsingh, S/o late ‘ Jagesliwarsingh, aged about 45 years, R/o village Aklordih, Tahsil and District Durg (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICIE 226/227 OF mE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :I-Ion’ble Mr. T.P.shnrma, J.) ‘ Lixk‘: Present Shn‘Susml Dubey, G A for the State/petltloner Shn J K Shashtm, Advocate for the respondent No 2 None for the respondent No 1 ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 16/08/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitmion of India pet'tioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order damd 1/4/ 2008 passed by Boanl of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Cimuit Court, Raipur), C.G. in revision revenue case No. 1006/A-68/2002-03 reversing the order. dated 14/9] 1989 passed by Additional Collector, Durg in revenue case No. 44/A.68/ 1988— 89 reversing the order dated 21/ 2/88 passed by Tahsildar, Durg Cg” ‘k . in mvenue case No. 466 A 68 year 83—84 whemby Tahsildar hm e settled the disputed land in hvour of the mspondeut No. 2. 2. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/petitioner and Shri J.K. Shashtri, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 are heard. 7 3. omer impugned, .copy of ihe order passed by Addieonal Collector, X /\ Durg dated 14/9] 1989 and copy of the order passed by 'l‘ahsildar / Dur'g dated 21/2/88 are perused. M .r;’— Order dated 21/2/88 xeveal that initially unooclipicd land was encroached by respondent No. 2 and same was settled’in the name of repondent No. 2 in acconiange with C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short ‘the Code’). After lapse‘oflso many yea‘rs villagers med an application] complaint befom the Tahsildar same was taken as for suomuto leview by Additional Collector who has passed order dated 14/9/ 1989 sameowas challened befom the Boani of g eveue er Sti 0 he o peal nd y puge oar f Reve quae e rder as y Additina olcto irtuall ass Tasildar e te proisions of C.. a Code, 9 or ve uner th pvsion of e C. Krishirayo‘a Ke L Up i Ja ab akha Rat ar Bhoa dka Ka i Dl hi Bhoomi P omiswmi Ahimn Pradan Kya Jn (Vh Upbandh Anim, 194 a Rven Cod aa ishes a) dhiya r8 as eue e as $ a authoriz e ho po unde on the Code be std w appbl bf te Sb ional mc en invee as ealae eore h u Dvisi Oer uner eon 4 of th Coend orer pad b Dival d Scn' 4 e da d sse y Sub ision Or Apelae i ws aso palble bef t mce as plt Authorty a l apea ote he Cot dditial ile der ect‘o f cio llecor]Aon Ooctor un sub-Sn 2 o Setn 44 of the o bu ppealble rd ot‘sbt te vi Cde t aa oer was nujec matr of reison d n rvio ws mnae bre y auty in an o esin a aintaibl efo an horit rd th po o Cau A ov to -Secon 1 ’ accoance wi rovis t lse— of priso 50 subti of io 50 of th Co Oer sed by diional Colcr ws Sectn e de. rd pas Adt leto a ao not aala before te a of Rue but by pssig ls ppeble h Bord even an I such order Additional Collector Durg and Board of Revenue have committed illegality and have ignored the law therebre such orders are not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Consequentbi; order dated 1/4f2008 passed by Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh‘, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur), C.G. in revision revenue case No. Rn und econ 144f t Cde in ap a b onier imnd Bd o nue shd th o psed b ol Cler. Vy order ped by h undr h v G Lnd Revenue 195 en d e rois th G. Pojn iye ayog K Ri ed OEcr wm wer r Secti 24 of has p—JA H> 1oos/A-68/2oo2-o3 and order dated 14/9/ 1989 passed by Addiu'onal Collector, Durg in xevenue case No. 44/A—68/‘1988-89 V are hereby quashed. However, aggrieved party or pmsent pcu'tioner is at liberty to assai1 the order before the ‘Tahsildar in telms of Section 35 of the Code or befom the Appellate Authority under Section 44 of the Code. No order as to costs. Sd/- . T. P. ,Sharrna 4x Judge