@;^^1 ^••P^^^V ywws-w1^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OE* JUDICA.TURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH WKITPBTITIONNO.4^60 OF 200S •%! A Vsi PETITIOMER: ^ Preinlal Halwai, S/o Yashfl.ran.t Hahffai, agcd abouf 75 ycars, Occypation: Business, resideat of Fazerpur, Jagdalpur, Chliattisgarh. ^^" ^^..-:- '^•"" vs RESPONDBNTS ..o^ (^ ^.^ k.'1 ^ •i> 2. -3. ^4. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaiy, Deparfcment of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Claliattisgarh. The CoBector, Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, The Tehsildar, Jagdalpur. Disfarict: Bastar, Chhattisgarh. V, Venkat Rao,S/o V. Narsimha Rao, Caste: Kapu, R/o Kejaramunda Ward, J^dalpur, District; Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Sanjay Kuinar Jaia, S/o Shaiitilal Jain, R/o Palace Road, Motilal Nchru WaTd, Jagdalpur, District: Bastar, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITIOM XJBDBR ARTICLBS ae 85 227 OP- THE COHSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR IS8UANCB OP AH APPROPRIATE WRTT IN THE NATURE OF IWANDAMUS /CERTIORARI ETC OR DIRECTION(S1 / ORDER(St IN THE UKBNATURE BTC. 106 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURBi AT BILASPOR. CHHATTISGARH Writ Petttion No.4660 of 2005 Preialal Hatwai - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh & others Presenfc - Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate For fhe petitioner. ith POST FOR ORDER ON 29'" SEPTEMBER. 2WS Sd/- L.c.Bhad00 ludge ^t":• sss: ^l 107 HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BI1ASPUR. CHHATTISGARH Writ Petttion No.4660 of 200S Preinlal Halwai - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh & others Present: - Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate For fhe petitioner, ORDER (Passed oni ?ASepteiaber, L.&BHADOO^J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 19,9.2005 passed by the Collector, Bastar in Review Case No.02/A-12/2004-05 arising out of the order dated 22.8.2005 passed in Revision Case No.Ol/A-12/2004-05. 2, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Brief facts, asset out in the petition, necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was in possession of 0.26 acres land bearing Kfaasra No. 16/32. Since the petitioaer was in possession of the said land, he initiated proceeding before the Tehsildar, Jagdalpur for settlement of land and therefore, a proclaiaation was issued. The Grain Panchayat, Dharg^npura gave no objection certificate, as a result of which the petitioner was conferred Bhuniiswami right yide order dated 10,11,1980. Thereafter, with the permission of the Graai Panchayat the petitioner constructed a house also on the said land, but soiaehow by i&istake in the revenue records the khasra number of the said land was recorded as 6/16 instead of 16/32, therefore, the petitioner inoved for correction of the aa •1 :IISBI •Sl HBI 1 'ISffl'III •i Page2of3 108 saine and same was corrected vide order dated 11.4.2005, Respondent No.4 claiming himself to be the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 16/45 on the basis of purchase of the same from Smt. Mitra Das Gupta & Smt. Jaishri Das Gupta under a sale deed (Annexure P-7), The map attached with the said sale deed shows that saine was a Nazri map, as such, boundaries of the land are not clear and taking advantage of that situation, respondent Nos.4 & 5 wanted to trespass on the land of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has filed a civil suit before the Court of 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Jagdalpur along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the C.P.C and the samc is peading decision. In the meantiiue, on 3.4.2003 respondent No.4 moved an application for deinarcation of his land bearing Khasra No. 16/45 and the saine was rejected by the Tehsildar, Jagdalpur. The order of Tehsildar was appealable, however respondent No.4 moved a revision before the Collector, Bastar and the Collector vide order dated 22,8.2005 set aside the order of the Tehsildar, Jagdalpur. 4. The niain grievance raised by counsel for the petitioner is that when the order of Tehsildar was appealable, the Collector was not entitled to entertain the revision. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner; I have perused the record. 6. 'yie dispute in this matter is that the petitioner is claiming his land on the basis of Bhuiaiswami right given by the Tehsildar, whereas, respondent No.4 is claiming right of land which was purchased by him under a sale deed and he moved for demarcation of the land as per sale deed, but how the Tehsildar rejected that application reasons are best known to thc Tehsildar. Even otherwise, it is the duty of the Revenue ssftf ssaxsss 109 Page3of3 Authorities to deinarcate the revenue lands of the respective parties, therefore, the Tehsildar ought to have deniarcated the land and if, on account that deinarcation, any dispute arises between the parties then the parties should liave been left to settle their disputes through judicial process. The Collector vide impugned order Iias correctly directed the Tehsildar to demarcate the land purchased by respoadent No.4, therefore without going into technicalities, I do not find any illegality .or infirmity iu the order impugned. Moreover, the petitioner has already filed a civil suit for deciding his rights and same is pending consideration before the 3Td Civil Judge, Class-II, Jagdalpur. Therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance against the deinarcation, he can raise ^^s^grievance before the appropriate Foruin. At fhis stage, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the Collector's order directing the Tehsildar to deniarcate the land of respondent No.4, which was purchased by tiiin under a sale deed. 7. In the result, the petitioner has aot been able to make out a case for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in order to interfere with the Collector's order. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed at thc adinission stage itself. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge iin/-