HI(lHj;OURTOPCH fflTISGARHATBiy^SPUR Wnt Petitwn No. 6C63 of2005 Petitionera 1. 2. Respoiidents --^ Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sutohi, aged about 48 years, son of ShriF^tela, OccupatiDn-agriculturist OaD^u'axa, aged Ed>out 46 yeara, STOB of Gamniraai, Occupatton- ^gricultimst. Bpfh flre resident ofwB^e- Barela, Viteas Khand, Muxq^li, Distetet- Bflaspur. State of GIihattisgarfa, lluui^b. fhe SeCtetary, DepartBaent of P&nch^at apd SpcialWelfare, Dau Katyaa Sin^i Bhawan, Raipur{C.G.). The Coltector, Disteict- Bflaspur (C.O.). The Sub Ettrasional Officer, MungeU, Distnct- Bilaspur(C.O^. Satpanch; Graaa Paacliayat Bmda, VBffls Khaiut MuageU, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). Up SsupanGli, Giam PMichayat Baiela, Witos Kfaand Mua^eB, District- Biiaspur(G.G.) Secaetaty, Qram PaacIiagBat Barela, yjkaSiKhandMungeli, Distiict- ;-~ Bitespur (C.G.). i m ;llil;l ].:1 1 i.' ;- ! I i^i <-; 8In|^ Bieaudi ^Man'ble Mr. Jnsticc 8. R. Haytik, C.J. Mr. Anil Sffigfa Rajput, Advocate for the petitkniera. Mr. P&ragKolawU^ PBUMllawyer&ri'espfflndents No. l tD3. Mr. Malay BItalun, Advocat? for Rcspondent No.4. ORALORDBR ( 9dl Dccexnber, ax») ThefonoiwmgordCToftheGourtwaspEasedbyiBi.R.lltyatt.C.A The complamtjn tbis writ petitaMn js that fhfi sutoject laad lielotigs toj fUeTGovenuneat aiid fbe respoiMlents Jto. 4 to 6, who anet^Bcel bearers of fhe Grain^ Panchayat ;Etarda, l^ttas Khand — Mungeli,| District- Bflaspur havc higlrhanrted]^ (ai.cTOacBcd thc Qovennment land aiid fhcy plaiied to put up «>nstracyon.Accordn^; to fte petitioners, fhe subject land is a comanuuty Isuid wlifch is accessablc to fhe public at largp, fhe viUage commnnjly as a wbole. It is coiuplained that though ibe above lughhaaded aetion of tfac Respondcnts No. 4 to 6 was brought to tfae notice of Respondcnt No.3 the Sub Divisional CtfGcer, Mungdi by repiesentatioa dated 23.8.2005, he did not tafce any action to stop xcspondCTits No. 4 to 6 fom mdulging in thc fltegal activities and ttiat evea representatton made to thc Distnct CoBectDr on ^.10.2005 went in vaia. In the (circumstanccs, the petittoaera have sought interwentioa ofthe Coiut. 'Sincc fhe pctition fited by fhe petitfoners befote the thinl respondent Sub Divtekmal Officer is pciidmg and smce it was biougtrt to iny notice by tearaed Govt Advocate fhat fhe Sub Dsnaaowal OtBcec has caDed a report fix>m. fhe jtirisdictunal Tahsfldar, fliere is no necessity to keep fliis writ petitfon oa the boaad of this Court The pubUc intercst would be serwxt by directing maintenaace of the status quo with ngari to the subject pToperty peadiag decisfon of the Sub Divisional OfiBcer oa ffae petition fited by thc petit»i«ersl atinl 2 ^ herein. 3. Accoxdiagly, this petitfon is disposed ofdirectmg aB tfae respondente to Tnflintain status quo that obtains as on today wifh regaxd to ibe subject property. The Respondents No. 4 to 6 are further directed not to alter fhe iiature bf thc subject land pendiaig order by fhe rcspondent No.3. No costs. Tlie respondent No.3 is directed to dispose offhc petition flled by the petitioiiers as cxpedittously aa possibte, at any rate, wiffiin a period offhree monihs fix>m tbe date of Teoeipt of fhe copy of fhis order. The ofitee is directed to fortliwith dispateh copy of fhjs order to fhe fhnd respondcnt Sdi- Chief Justice '^.p