-^ ^- h<^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (Cl N0.429 OF 2009 PETITIONERS 1. Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat. Barela. 2. Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Barela. 3. Secretary. Gram Panchayat. Barela. All R/o Gram Panchayat, Barela. Tah. Mungeli, District Bitaspur (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of ChhatBsgarh. throuflh the Secretaiy, Department of Panchayat and Sociat Weffiare, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director, Department of Psu'iobayat and Social Wetfare, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(CG). 3. The Collector. District Bilaspur (CG). 4. The Sub Divjsional OfHcer, Munfleli, District BHaspur (CG). 5. Lekhram Kaushik. age 36 yeare»S/o Shri Radheshyam Kaushik, permanent R/o Sargano, Tah. Mungeli, Ha( Mukam Gram Panchayat, Barela, Tah. Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petitionynder Article 226/227 Qfthe CpnsUtytion oflndia) Singte Bench: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Aflnihotri. J. Present:- Shri R.K. Gupta. counset for the petitioners. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, PaneJ Lawyer for the State. .ORDER (Passed on this 23ro day of January, 2009) With the consent of tearned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) By this petition, the petjtioi'iers challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 25-12-2008 (Ann^xure-P/1) passed by the Director (Panchayat). in revisfon No.217/A.89/2007.08 whereby the Dtrector (Panchayat) has dismissed the revfeion filed by the petitioners. 3) The indisputabte facts, in nutsheU. as projected by the p^tiBoner's, are that the respondent No.5 herein fited an application under Section 40 of Zf ^ i t "1i J \^^^/ ^N^ the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhniyam, 1993 (forshort tttt Ac iyani, 1993") before the Sub Divisjonal Officer, Mungeli. stating that the petitioners, who are the ofRce bearers of Gram PanchDyat, Bareta, encroached upon the Govemment Jand bearingkhasr9Nos.347/2& 640/1. area 0.10 acres & 0.50 acres. Palwari Halka No.25 situated at viHage Barela. 4) The Sub Divisional OfRcer by order dated 19-11-2007 observed that no action can be taken against the petitioners as per the prQyisJons of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 however, he referred the matterto the Collector. Bilaspur, for taking necessary action as per the provisions of Section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The Coltector by order dated 10-7-2008 observed that the petitioners have not encroached the land jn dispute, but the same has been encroached by the Gram Panchayat, Barela and the matter has been remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer. Thereafter the Sub Divisional Ofllcer issued a show cause notice to the Sarpanch on 27-8-2008 and asked him to submft th^ repty on or before 11-9-2008. On the basis of report received frpm the Sub DMsional Officer. the Additional Coltector. Bilaspur passed an order dated 10-7-2008 incase No.79/A.89(23)/2007-08 by not accepting the contention of the petttioners and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional OfRcer. The petifioners preferred a revision before the Court of Director (Panchayat) against the action taken by the respondent authorities. which has been rejected by orderdated 25-12-2008. Thus, this petition. 5) Learned counsel for the petitSoner submits that th^ respondent No.5 has filed an application under S^ction 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and on the said application; the Sub Divi$ional Officer observed that it is not a case of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam. 1993. Even the Coltector. Bilaspur, tes also obseived that the petftioner have not encroached the land in dispute personally, but the Gram Panchayat has ©ncroachedifc The Director (Panchayat) without appreciating the facts and cjrcumstances of the case in its tetter and spirit rejected the revision of the petitioners. 6) I have heard tearned counsel forthe parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. In the impygned orcler dated 25-12-2008 the Director (Panchayat) observed that in compliance of the order dated 10-7-2008 the Sub Divisional Officer has issued the show cause notice and the proceedings are pending consjderation and under the -^^^%.. % '/'-iT^\ ^ ?i-^ '8 1 (t ''^fe^ 1 -^^ ^^^" circumstances, ft is not justtfied to interfere in the proceedings. Thus, the order impugned js unexceptionabte. just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 7) This Court in exercise of its supervisoiy jurisdiction under Articte 227 of the Constjtution of India should refrain itself from interferino with the orcter passed by th^ Coyrt b<B(ow, e>^pt in syi;h 09^^^^^^ peryersity. illegalify, irregularity or juriscKctional error is writ large on the face of the record, whfch is not in the present case. 8)) In view of Ihe forefloing, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 9) Consequently. I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge