IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUg PETITIONER: /"]agdish Banjare K’SKM; rs; “Q” mwix§ “a Aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Meluram R/o Village Manikpur; Police Station Bodla, Tahsil Bodla District Kabirdham (CG) Banjare, VERSUS Ieevan Kurmi S Shxi eeralal urrr'li, Ad at 45 ars, /o ikpur, Tahsil aaha, srict Karham (C.G.) ‘ ESP F» '. Ro m \‘ y” u - /o H K ge bou Ye R Man Kwrd Dit bid PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS: ggwm 0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Slnqle Bench w Hon’ble Shn Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition 1C4 No.71?!) of 2009 Jagdish Banjare Petitioner VerSU$ Resgondent Jeevan Kurmi Present: Shri Varun Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, N Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20th January, 201 0)‘ Heard ieamed c0unsei for the petitioner on admission. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 169—2008 passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the revision petition tiled‘by the respondent and thereby dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Lend Revenue Code, 1959. (henceforth ‘the Code, 1959’) for restoration of possession. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue has committed an error of law in allowing the revision and dismissingthe petitioner’s application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 inasmuch as the petitioner had preferred the said appltcation- Within 2 years from 15-12 2002 re the date when the land was \ demarcated and the petitioner became aware of the encroachment v made by the respondent. .vz-v 6 4. According to the petitioner, the ieamed Board of Revenue ought not to have aiiowed the revision and interfered with the reasoned order passed by the Collector, Kabirdham. 5. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, it would appear that the learned Board of Revenue has recorded a categorical tinding that the demarcation report is not clear about the land in possession ofvthe respondent. The Board of Revenue has dealt with the statement of Shri Kurre, the 8uperintendent, Land Records, who has made the demarcation and after appreciation, it has been found that it is not clear as to on which particular part of the land the respondent has made encroachment. The Board of Revenue has also considered the requirement of Section 250 of the Code, 1959 and has held that to succeed in an application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, the applicant has to prove, firstly, his title over the land, secondly, he was in possession of the land and thirdly, he has been dispossessed from the land within 2 years from the date of submission of the application. After dealing with the case on the anvil of these three requirements of law, the learned Beard of Revenue has recorded a categorical finding that it is not proved from the evidence on record that the petitioner was in possession of the subject land and he has been dispossessed within 2 years from the date of submission of the application. 6. ln the opinion of this Court, the hndings recorded by the Board of f ‘ , Revenue in the impugned order are findings of fact and cannot be 7 ' I r interfered with in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of I India though the petitioner has referred only Article 226 0f the Constitution of india in the petition. 7. The Writ petition faiis and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Prashant Kumar Miehi'a ‘ i Sd/- - Judge Gopal VK