^W""SisVl ..-°-:' A.-<?y2A-1 ,-^7^-^^ ''-y'.^y' ^-•":^:fc> ^~7\^^-' ^\...<^\,-;;--:.- ^M5^' --f<"^ '•i-' w^ ..-s'-^y <»°" 3N THE HIGH OOOBT OF treBICATORE AT BXIASPUB (C6) WKtT PETIT30N H0<4jq4- ©F200 BETWBBi 1« Manglu S/o Bagha Kolta.aged about 50 yeaes « 2. Arkhit S/o Raglau Kdlta» aged about 45 seafs* Botb resAdent pf villaga MQEhagaon.Tahsil /eharc^eda DlstEict Rai^arh (co), ^. o. PETITIONEttS r -M A^ i'1?>' f^ •V ^ o /' v/ <? ^ 7 / 2. f' 5. A N D State of Clahattisgarh, throa^ Collectoe Baigarh(es)«, .; SBbDivistonalOfflcte (R), ©bacghoda Bistalct aaigarh (C6). a'lti.ya Bat W/oDekfaaBanacai Kanwaa:* Karam Aiaghs/o BadiEan KanwaE (Sl»»o«3and 4 beth Eesideat o£Vlllag* KesM-a Tatasil Qhat;fltaada Dlstr.lct RalgarNce)* Bend Ram S/e Moban 8an Kalae, easident of Vlllag^aac Wurl^gapB.Tabsil Gltar.ghoda Bistciet Raigarh (CS)*' Oanesh Ran s/o subran Kanwar, resAdent of Village Stekharpur/BarItadand, Tatasil Patbalgaoa Distrlet Raigarb(CG). RESPOHDEBTS ^" - WRIT PETCT3SON ONDBR ARl'BCI.E 227 OF THE CONSTITOTION OF BBDI& '<Q XI-HC-78 antCTWftqto a2iTan^?rri>ii* vj-oq -yi<<i«^,u>-ahi<i<s, Romy ..^'i:...":\\^.}?.y. 3(1^91 tR^ (Ticrfg6RE) s^irsR^tflnsii^aT 07.9. ZOOS Iftdia Ctde Shri Awadh Tr'ipathi, Shri Sandeep Oubey, S\ Hecrd counsei for the The pstitioners have p^ of the Consti-i-ution of correctness of order dated ftevenue Case No.25/A-23^99- the appeai preferred by the| 12.8.1996 passed by the Sub N0.142/A-23/87-88 in which 170-B of the Land Revenue disputed land was transferre|d ISeyenue Code, as such for repossession of The iand. Counsei fcr the peTitiones's' herein was dismi] also elelivered on the counseil bsing iiisteraTe persons the p|e now uihen the respondente t filed The present peTiTlon. l-iavin9 heard learned c| record. ctunsel respo4dent pe+itio(>erg <ni<i?CT<ili *)i*tnl"^"ls'<3 •(fui'iyt ^3lf^T3II^?T ;^unsei for the petitioners. '^vt. Adv. for respondent No.l & 2. [(etitioners. ^eferred this petition under Articie 226/227 questioning the legaiity, pr'opr'iety and 11.2.1999 passed by the Coliector, Ral9arh in )-96 uihereby iear'ned Collector had dismissed petitioners hereln against The order dated (iivisionai Officer, Sharghoda in iSevenue Case rhe 5&0 exercising the powers under Section '^cie, 1959 reached to the concbsion that the in vio!ation of Section 165(6) of the Land No.3 A 4 herein uiere declar'ed entitied argued that it is true that appeai of the ^sed on 11.2.1999 and copy of Judgment was for the pe+itionere hecein on 10.3.1999, but jetitioners did not approach any authority and [•ied to dispossess the petitioners they have jsunsel for the pa+itioners, I hove per'sued the -HC-78 <dxq rawwii, y-ah«<i<s,fi«i<(-iy<< 3Ilt?TTTR-<i* aansirtniOTte SS3Si 3II^?I (Rcp (^fgcRg) s^iTw^rfSasn^r -^i ab 199^ In my opinion, this petit| on the ground of tatches, eppel!ate order dated 11.2.; and no gufficient reason has b| of the Coiiector dated 11.2.19 provisions of Section 44(2) (1)| In yiew of the abo'/e, th| itseif. Consequentiy, M.(W.)P. ciso stand disposed of. ]on is not malntainable on two grounds; firstly this petitian questionihg the legaiity of has been filed after around about 6^ years ^en given for deiay; secondly, even the order '99 is subject to the second appea! as per lof the Land ftevenue Cade. ^ petition Is dismissed aT the admission stage ^0.3434/05 and I.A. Nos.7667/05 &7668/05 <PI<<FC><DI imCTitfls'^l •tl'Jifgix ^?3ll^«T3II^ST Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge