^t£^St •ws^ ^" IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. No. 6^0/2001 \^'" WRIT PETITION Uv<DER ARTICLE 226/227 OF ITITIONER N-APPLICANT ^RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Parikshit Kumar Patel, aged 70 yrs. S/o Namdhari Patel, R/o Bilaigarh Tahsil Dabhra, Distt: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Vs 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department Raipur. Additional Commissioner Bilaspur (C.G.) Additional Collector Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Dabhra. Lagan Sai S/o Karmu R/o Kulba, Tahsil -Kharsia Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) .''S^\f, e^--j.-v^f (D c^> rc- rt^^ <^- ^ w.^ ->1 Damrudhar Patel S/o Late Shs $^ Parikshit Kumar Patel, aged about 4©years, R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil Dabhara Distt. Janjgir- ,a>^.T^-»*/ Champa(C.G.j 'RESP' APPLI 'u ffiT;B[-;!!ui| <^r ^w' ^ •y:/ State of Chhattisgarh and others .,,,..-< S»ss58a> r l"'*;-/^.'-^'^-^?-^^',.-^''^ Appearance: Shri B.L. Dembra, counse} for the petition.er. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. WRIT PETITION 17NDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF B^DIA ORAL ORDER (01.12.2010) The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division on 10 Januapy', 2001 (Annexure P- 5). By the said order the Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector on 16/12/1999 whereby the Additional Collector had remanded the matter for fresh enquiry to the Sub Divisional Ofiicer Revenue. (2) The matter pertains to and originates from proceedings under section 170-B ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code. Naine ofpetitioner's father Parikshit Kumar was recorded in the Sanshodhan Panji on the basis ofhis possession for more than 12 years. Undisputedly, the land belongs to Lagan Sai who had purchased the property from its previous owner. (3) Tfae Sub Divisional Officer dropped the proceedings vide its /' order dated 1/12/1998 after holding that the land belong to a persoii -z •^•ys::-^ ,^fs/,"J§- who belong to Panika Caste who is non tribal, therefore provisions of section 170-B ofC.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are not applicable. The A-dditional Collector set aside the order and remanded tlie matter for fresh enquity by the Sub Divisional Officer after fmding that fhe aame of petitioner's father has been recorded only on the ground of possession and that the original holder belongs to Savara Scheduled Tribe and thus, it is tobe examined afresh because Ae Sub Divisional Officer has passed criptic order. (4) In the opinion of this court, the Commissioner faas rightly declined to interfere with the remand order passed by the Additional (5) The petitioner shall have all the opportunity to lead evidence in the proceedings before the Sub Divisional OfFicer to prove that the provisions of 170-B ofC.G. Land Revenue Code are not applicable in the present case. The order passed by the Additional Collector or by the Commissioner does not prejudice the case qfthe petitioner, hence present is not a fit case for exercise ofjurisdiction under Article 227 ofConstitution oflndia. (6) Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Judge