Petitioner HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 5767 of 2007 Prakash Chand, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Chanchal Das Thakur, resident of Nipaniya, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). Respondent (s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh, Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, through its President, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 3. The District Collector, Distt. Raipur (CG). 4. Sub Divisional Officer - Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (CG). 5. The Tahsildar - Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). 6. Prakash Kumar Naik, son of Shri Kartik Ram, aged about 43 years, resident of village Nipaniya, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition underArticle 227 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Ashok Soni, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel'Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 26 day of November, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 11-7-2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N/14/R/A-68/1175/06, whereby the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision and upheld the order dated 3-8-2006 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, the order dated 19-11-2004 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Sub fi,T^ "^' Divisional Officer, Bhatapara as well as the order dated 7-6-2004 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Bhatapara. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected bythe petitioner, are that on 29-8-1992 the brother of the petitioner namely; Anil Kumar was granted lease in respectofKhasra No.469/1, area 0.006 hectares on which the petitioner consfructed the house over an area about 0.004 hectare. The respondent No.6 herein made a complaint on 13-7-2004 (Annexure P/2) against the petitioner in the court of Tahsildar, stating that the petitioner has encroached over an area of 0.004 hectares, out of the total area 34.235 hectare, Khasra No.469/1 which was recorded in the revenue record as Government grass land. On the basis of the complaint made by the respondent No.6, Naib Tahsildar registered the case being Revenue Case, No.9A/68/2003-04 and issued a show cause notice (Annexure P/3) to the petitioner. The petitioner replied the show cause notice stating that the disputed land was recorded in the name of his brother Anil Kumar and the lease was granted in respect of the same land. It was further mentioned in the application that the petitioner has not constructed any structure on the Government land, except on the land recorded in the name of his brother. On 4-6-2004, the respondent No.6 appeared before the Court of Naib Tahsildar and submitted his report. By order dated 7-6-2004 (Annexure P/5), the Naib Tahsildar declared the petitioner as enoroacher of the Government land and also imposed penalty of Rs.1000/- and directed the petitioner to remove the construction work from the disputed land. 3) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhatapara, Raipur. The Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the appea] holding that the petitioner was encroacher on the Government land and maintained the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, which was also dismissed on the same ground. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision holding that in spite of directions given by the various authorities, the petitioner has not removed the construction work from the disputed land. Hence, this petition. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Courts below, while dismissing the case of the petitioner, have not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. Notwithstanding the fact that the land in question was granted on lease in the name of his brother, the courts below declared the petitioner as encroacher of the Government land. Learned counsel further submits that only on the basis of report of Patwari, the Naib Tahsildar declared the petitioner as encroacher. The courts below ought to have appreciated the fact that the respondent No.6 is an interested person on the disputed land because while making construction work, he has not raised any objection, however, at the eleventh hour he made a complaint against the petitioner. Learned counsel praysthat the impugned order dated 11-7-2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue be set aside. 5) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order passed by the Court below. 6) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pteadings and documents appended thereto. The Board of Revenue has clearly recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner has failed to produce any witness or documents to prove that the petitioner has ^sr^, /'>'assk ^ ''Wg^ssi!'' constructed the structure on the land allotted to his brother. Even the brother of the petitioner was also not examined before the authorities below. Thus, the orders passed by the authorities below were just and proper. The Board of Revenue after going through the orders passed by the courts below observed that in spite of the directions given by the various authorities, the petitioner has not removed the construction work on the disputed land. The Board of Revenue further directed to remove the construction work made by the petitioner by 15-9-2007 and also directed that if the same was not removed by the petitioner, proceeding under Section 248 (2) of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 be initiated against the petitioner. It is clarified that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to ownership or title of the land in dispute liberty is reserved to the petitioner totake recourse to jurisdictional civil Court for appropriate relief. 7) This Court, in exercise of its supervisoryjurisdiction underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except 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. 8) Thus, the order dated 11-7-2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue is unexceptionable, just & proper and does not warrant any interference. 9) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. -—-- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Raju