BEI c ?'.v QO 1M,TME OF CHHATFISOARH AT BILASEUE WRIT PET!T!ON N0. U ^^'fSQQ^ PETITIONER A 'I 1- ^ Devlal, S/o. Jhaduram Sahu, Aged about 4Q years, R/Q. Village \^...L*"^"^^: Badhera (Ban) pa^wari Halka ^^S^ .^'^ No-17' Distt- RajnandgaQn (C.G.). ^^:-:""^'"; AaWA'^'^)^' ?<®' VERSUS RESPONDENTS .0> ^o^ r^ '^l^- <^"v 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Revenue. 2. The Collector, Rajnandgaon. 3. The Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR QRDER/DIRECTIONS IN NATURE OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS. CERTJORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR LIKE NATURE _ „_rpl-»^-^-^^-t— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition No. 1665 of2005 ^ PETITIONER : Devlal VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Stete ofChhattisgarh & others fWKTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA} (SB: HontbleMr.N.K.Aearwril,J.) Present : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri GDWaswani, Govt. Advocate for the Stete. ORALORDER (Passed on 11.04.2011) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 22.03.2005, passed by the Board ofRevenue in revenue ease No. 141/A-l9(5)/ 2003-04 whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed affirming the order dated 26.02.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon. 2. Undisputedly, the land in question is Abadi land. Shri Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner could not show any provision underWhich Abadi land can be settled in petitioner's favour. The Board ofRevenue has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the above ground. 3. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or irregiilarily in the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. v 11 ^ ^ 4. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Coastitution of India, should rej&ain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, excqpt in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 5. The petition has no merit and the same is aeeordmgly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^ Sahu