XM-ICQZ Wm 311?? F.. W gfp} 1 28.06.2004 Shri Rajcev Shrivastawa, counsel forthe pétitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Adv. fm" rcsgendcnt 870i to 3. Shri NLD. Shauna, cuunsel for responaient Mari}. This order shall govern the disposal sf the. gmt'itions namelv Writ Petition ho.1409/2004 hawefeix Smt. Eiaitshwari Chaturvmii & another Vs Baaa‘d of Ravenum Chhatu‘sgarh an others, Wr:t Petition Na.l.4—E‘G;EOS4 ’z:-3*~:ween Satish Chand «lain Vs. Board 0f Ravamm, Ch‘nattisgarh 8s othcrs, Writ petition No.14l2l‘2604 between Alok Kumar Vs. rd of Revenue Chhattistgarh k others, Writ petition No.1411/2004 bttW$tn Smi. E’ccna Tiwari & anot er Vs Board of Revenue fihattisgarh 6s others an Writ Petition No.1545/2004 between Smt. Jyoti Dixit others Vs. Boarti of Revcnue, Chhattisgarh as others, nce all these writ petition.“- rclatc to thc same issuc and impugn tha order-dam 23.03.2004 passed b the Board of Revenu Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur th refere, they are being diepost: sf bv this common order. In an these writ pe tions return has already been fixed on behalf of respond nt No.4. The circumstances 1 ading to filixfg of all these writ petitions are that respo dent No.4 herein moved an a3??iication before the 'l‘e sildar, Biiaspur under Section k,‘ a i XLHC—22 L 1 250 of the Land Revenue Godc, 1954 requesting therein the land bearing Khasra No.724f‘ 1 arca 0.24 acres aituatcé at Viliag€ Tifr& (Bfaarii Nagar} and the possession of the petitioners herein over the said land aro unauthori ed, therefore, the possession of the same may be given to him. The Tehsildar after considering the arguments f the parties vide order—(iated 09.07.2001 rejected the a plication by holding that the application is no: maintain ble under Section 25H of the Code. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar, respondent No.4 herein p ferred an apyeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bil spur who also after hearing the parties dismissed \ that he is Bhuswami of appeal vide order dated 09.03.2003 and held that in order to seek relief umier Section 250 of the Co , it is necessary that the applicant who is seeking r lief must be the Bhuswami of the land. in dispute, the de arcation of the land must be established undisputedly nd it shall also be clear that on which date the applica t was dispossessed from the land in dispute and since t e applicant could not be able to prove all these facts, th refore, the applicant was not entitled for any relief and ppeal was dismissed. Again aggrieved by the order of S b Divisional Officer, Bilaspur respondent No.4 had pref rred a second aoyeal before the Board of Revenue Chha tisgarh, Bilaspur, which was registered as Reienue App a1 No.537/A-70f2002-2003; t d The 1earned Board of Revanue after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the back to the Tehsildar wi enquiry on the application he should be granted relie I have heard the lea Learned counsel for learned Board of Revenue given a direction to v e Tehsildar to application filed by respo dent No.4 herein and relief a8 prayed in that application e granted to respondent No.4. that this direction of the learned Board of Revenue s patently illegal and perverse. The Board of Revenue wa not authorized to give such a direction while remandin the case back contrary to the provisions contained in S ction 44 o'f the Code. 0n. the other hand l arned counsel for respondent: No.4 tried to support the rder of the Revenue Board. Having heard the 1e rned counsel for the partix and having regard to the acts and circumstances of t3 case, I am of the opinion that the direction] observatic of the learned Board of appeal and remanded the case th a direction to conduct an of respondent No.4 herein and f as prayed in the application. ed counsel for the parties. e petitioners argued that the hile remanding the Case back on the Counsel further submit evenue to the extent that to grant relief as prayed in the application is not correct instead thereof the learne Revenue Board ought to have directed the Tehsildar t conduct an enquiry on the application 'of respondent 0‘4 herein in accordance with XLHC-22 Wm 11mmmea,€..t&.¢.a4.yeiauu.uW 200 ma mmazm WW‘ Wm kmm xv #T 'the law and to pass appropriate order after conducting enquiry in accordance with law. Therefore, in View of the abovc all the above writ petitions are allowed an the order tiated 23.03.2004 passed by the Board of Re cnuc is modified to the extent that the Tehsildar to onduct an enquiry on the application of responden No.4 and pass- appropriate order in accordance with he law. I At the time of paesin" of the order the Tehsildar will be required to decide follo ing points alsoz~ a Whether on the date of application respondent No.4 herein was the Bhuswami of the land for which he had filed the application and the date when he was dispossessed from the said land. With the aforesaid directions and observations these petitions are disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. ($XLIQKI "