3 ^A^ <rZ7 BEFORE THE HON'Bfe&Ii^&H COURT OF QElHXTTISGARH AT W.E.N& ^^3^- PETITIONERS /" -i,S 1 ^•:;s>i^ ..^.'^^ '^ r •^py''?" .•< •^'1. Bodhiram S/o tatjg shri Tokharam, aged^about 43 years 2, Hiralal S/o tate shri Tokharam, Aged .^8P> ^fs^ »?*,»" , ,.•••"' .A^"" i""y'*' RESPOND|NTS abput 41 years Botii Caste Dheemar, R/o Vill. Janji, Tehsil Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) V E RS US ^-1. Sub-divisional officer (Civil), Bilaspur (C.G.) ,Z. Additional Cbllector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3,. N.T.P.C. Plant, Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) /• 4. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Revenue Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, GE Road, Raipur (C.G.) ,5. Rajendra Bhosle, Patwari, Vill. Seepat, PH no. 27, Vill. Janji, Tehsil Seepat, Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF PETITION: - 1. PARTICULARS OF PETITJQNER 2. PARTICULARS QFRESPONDENTS :- As above in title. :- As aboys'in title. '^ ORDERAGAINST WHJCH THE PETITION IS BEING MADE :- Case no. :- B -121/1050304 and 25 B^121/D304 Contd..2.. 7^^w. ^w': ^ 3^ •<<i<ii<n<i, ®Til-H4is,[i<ciiyy,< ^..?..A.Q.h.:^.£:... sn^r T°ra? (yit3'!«i£() 311^1 q>T K-u^ ^T 3?T^?)'»*!iqt y;,'^t ^TOR^felSIT^r SB: Hon'Me Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 06-04-2010 Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for tljie petifoners. Shri Sanjeev KumarAgrawal, Pan Shri Varunendra Mishra, counsel ^l Lawyer 1br respondents No. 1,2, and 4. tor respondent No.3. This pelition has been fited by t|ie pefitioner aggrieved by order dated 19/07/20)4 (Annexure P-11) passed byttfe Addifenal Collector, Bilaspurwhereby revjston filed by the petitioner has been d The petitjoner filed an applteation ^missed. Ifor mutation of his name in the retevant revenue records on the strength of sale cjeed dated 19/1 1/1949 (Annexure P-12) However, his application \ws rejected by 21/04/2003 (Annexure P-7). Aggrieved b before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bil^spur. Vide order dated 24/12/2(M2 (Annexure P-1), Sub-Uvisional OfBcer i Thereaflsr, the case of the petitioner re^nained pending and on 21Q/2004, an order was passed summoning recoids o) said order, the petittoner filed a revision who, vide order dated 19/07/2004 dismis! filed assailing aforesaid order passed in n ground that order dafed 21/20004 amoui)ts to reviewing earlier orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute tong back, the part of the revenue authorities jn not| He fijrlfter submits that on account of nort acquired bythe NTPC, compensation wa4 Submission of the tearned count decisjon is causing severe hardship. On the other hand, tearned couj 'WlfepfrT'Rmft 4 fttA'?^R5R ^'a.rRn aii^i he Addittonal Tahsitetar vide order dated rlhe sakl order, he preferred an appeat •manded the case fbr proper enquiry. missal and map etc. Aggrieved by the lefore the Additional Collectsr, Bilaspur, .ed the revision. This petition has been •vision by the Additional Collector on the ^ie is suflering on account of inactton on mutating his name in revenue records. mutation, at the time when the land was not paid to him. .el for the petitioners is that delay in (isel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Additional Coltector s(nd the Sub-Divistonal Officer. TW^, <[^r:^t'F? — (•:^. 'i i"f- - V2fl i 9 — t ,00,000. ,,flfswi%, :,,.<*h> ^l, •<,-y/ f g3 XI-HC—78 <)IHdTth*n^i '3"{ ^i-^Kiq, ^•ti)<-i<|(o, fs«11<-l^< ..l^..F>.....60..tj.J...6y TF^200 sn^i ^fsf; (ip^^iET) sf^v qn R-ii* 'rT^TT STT^f sh*ii<?i ^RDWHfttl 3(1^1 Taking into consideration the opinion, interest ofjusfice would be the case of the petitioner with regan pleadings and evidence as may be co matter has remainsd pending since respondent No.1 shall e)g}edB:iously di^ of 6 months from the date of receipt this Court has not expressed any mutation based on sale deed. With the aforesaid directton, thi submisston made by the parties, in my se^ved in directing respondent No.1 to decide nll to his claim of mutation on the basis of lected during the course of enquiry. As the |last several yeare, it is directed that the ^pose of the case, preferably within a period a|f a copy of this order. It is made clear that o^inion on the petitioner's claim regarding petition stands disposed of. _ . __— Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge qiT^[^l4)T( 'HR^ff TCf 'fel^ <T^<-$I-(. ^T3ifiPT311^r 1