r \\ ¢ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (Art.227) N0.6725 of 2009 (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of mdia) MLSantosh Bharat, oounsei for the petitioner. Mr.Ravindra Agrawai, counsel for respondent No.1 . Mr.Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for respmdents No.2 to 5l8tate. . (SB: Hon‘ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) oRoER (ORAL) (1 0-8—201 1 ) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 1.8.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.R.N.IO2/R-A-70/85/2009, affirmed the order dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by_the Tahsildar, Mungeli in Revenue Case No.1 1/A-70/06-07, whereby the Tahsildar, Mungeli has passed the order of evictionlorder of reinstatement of Bhumi-swami i.e. respondent No.1 illegally dispossessed from his Bhumi-swami land. 2. l have heard learned counsei for the parties, perused the order impugned and order of the Tahsildar, Mungeli. Petitioner Laliya, age 42 years, S/o’ Hiradas/ Non-appiicant Satnami, Rlo village-Dulhinbay, Tah. Mungeli. Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus Responden‘ 1. Padamchand Sio iate Aaskaran Jain, Applicant Rlo Andraj Wartl, Mungel! Tah. Mungeli, DisttBilaspur (C.G.). Nunepplicants 2. Tahsildar, Mungeli, DisttBilaspug' (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer. Mungeli; DisitBiiasur (C.G.) 4. Additional Collector, Biiaspur, DistiBilaspur (C.G.) 5. Commissioner, Biiaspur (0.6.) 6. Board of Revenue, Biiaspur‘ DisttBiiaspur (C.G.) _2,_ J. 3. Order passed by the Tahsildar, Mungeli reveals that without any demarcation and without any evidence, the Tahsiidar has rejected the defence and claim of the petitioner only on the ground that he hasnot ~ w tiled document. 4. ln order to pass any order under Section 250 of the Ghhattisgarh_}Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for shod ‘the Code’), revenue Court was under 1 obligation to ensure the fact that whether Bhumi-swami has been o illegally dispossessed other than due course of law by the person on the basis of document or demarcation report and evidence. 5. The present petitioner has not admitted his possession over Bhumi—swami land of respondent No.1, therefore, the Tahsildar was not competent to pass such order without material/evidence. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned and order dated 8.5.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Tahsildar, Mungeli are hereby quashed. caSe is remitted to the Court of Tahsildar, Mungelt for deciding the application afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The petitioner and respondent No.1 are directed to remain present before the Court of Tahsildar, Mungeli on 7.9.2011 for further proceeding of the case. No order as to costs.