A, JV Cww IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BI-LASPUR / wtit‘Petitio'n No. 3272— /2003 Sarguja (C.G.) 9/} . WRIT PETITION U/A 226/22? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As stated above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As stated above in the cause title. .r‘ ' PETITIONER Adverd Minj, S/ o.Late Shri a... g Late Lucas Minj , Caste Urawn “R‘ Aged about 65 years R/o. ~ y m V111age Amandon Tghs1l \J Pratappur Dlstt Sargu]a(C G ) «‘1‘ Q ° .v" 0}; VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Sarguja (C.G.) 3. The State Revenue Board ChhattiSgarh Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Smt. Phulbasiya, D/ o. Ratani Caste Gond, R/ o. Vill. Amandon Tah. Pratappur, District XI—HC-22 , 24. 1 1 .2003 Shri D.N. Prajapati, couns’« Heard. By this writ petition under Article 226 I 227 of Coneti’wtion of India the pEiitioner has chajle passed by the Board of Reve: (Annexure P—S) and order damd ( Distt. Sarguja in case No.50-A-6- P€rusal of the order of the that the said order was purely z next date of hearing or till the / before the Court and against tha v the Board of Revenue and Reva] the ground that the case is tIiXed for hearing on 26.08.2003, therefore, there is no justitica‘ n on considering the impugned order, as the order passed by th Collector was purely a temporary order till next date of hearing r till the respondent makes his presence. Instead of approachin Courts after Courts the petitioner ought to have waited till next da e. of hearing and after tiling of the :1 for the petitioner. gage aged the order dated 27.08.2003 due in \Case No.423/‘A—‘6-A/02—08 )5.08.2003 passed by the Collector A/02-03 (Annexure P-2) Collector dated 05.08.2003 reveals 1 temporaiy order and that too till respondent makes his presence t order the petitioner moved before iue Board rejected the revision on \ “ax 5x r z n XI-HC-ZZ WW wW a:mar&w, the Collector anci only after the reply ought to have waitsd till £115 disposal of inten'm applicau'ou by dispasal of the application he ought to have approached the Court or ext—least in the situationyhere the interim order was to he continued for indefinite period. ’The learned counsel in not in a position tc tell what is the status 'of the stay application as on today/X In View of the above, I de not find any substance in this Writ petition. Therefore, it is dismiseed. Consequently, M.W.P. No.2986/O3 6r, LA. No.960$/03 stantl disposed of. i Sdl- L.C.BHAooo Judge e #“o l l [1% éfea