hnGhKaO®RilKQFeHt-lOTTISGABHMaBIUiSPUR^ W.P.No.2341?^2@02-g£" Petitfaner ;G||>n§^%iii, aged S2 yeare, SA) 3S®rKlSaf«»r,; RAs^Sanocl.yE^t-Durg :Weisus; ^^spf^SMtatUsgarti.TtiKitiigh.The [Rpif^toKEjuiB'(e.G.) S^~^^U. ^raTP6ltFI©NMnBi8liRa^S&2263QPJTI-(6 SB?||or(-b|^KBtit||^iUsglK. Asinihotri ShriAshokDasVaishnay^ActvOcaiewilKShriSameerSahu.Advocaties ;for-the:peUBoner;'::- •'--'•" ^':'-,'" , ;-'1"^11'"1: ' ••", ':;'':.':;::': : ; Shr^SUsHil Dubey,^Sovt..A{lv6Kit&fwffie respondent/State. •- ^S-^-•%':':.-^.&DSM%;'•;".-:•!.".: ..~' • 1 • ^ (Passed^Wis18tbday:o<^ne,^()01r) 1c Tlie case of the peffioneris that^ieis irrpos^^ien^oBtielahds, which W6re in possessicn of hiss|ifscfecessors. Thg (iiossesision of the lands in^pesfion f^^^eerrwnBtermpted and jcoNinuous.: The petitioner is presentlypworloi^as?ISotwar.The^RetttK>ne^^^d^ BhoomiswamirightsoveF^lancls^wraehhayelbeerrgrant^b^ corapetentauthontytohispredeGessers,piiorto195Q.- 2. t-eamed counsel for the p^ltioner submits"that itHe facts and question of taw invohred in this?pelUU6n; a?w6U as tHe relief sbught, are similar to that gf jn W.. P; ^^t <»2002'ffNte Siitgh and offtersVs.TheStateofGhl-iat^arta&^ei^whiGJiwasdispased of by this Court vide order ^atecK 22m^Rebruaiy, 2007, in the following terms:- • ' JI'''\..z':3''"S £~.£.;1^• :''...'] ~I:-: "In the resul^lWs petttiori j^isj»<»^2^jW)tft;tl idiT^oriUiat < tlTOcompetentauthoritys^^^sit^ S,1otgtantWB!M){^^ -^^ffordingpr6peroRpprtunrty;^ |^ng^th&c^ ,- ,'e1' - Thakur within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthfsorder." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State does not dispute the above fact. 4. tn view of the above, thls petition stands disposed of in terms of the orderdated 22.2.2007, passed by this Cpurt in W. P. No. 341 of 20)2 (Fatte Singh and othere Vs. The State of ChhaUsgarh & others). No order as tp cpsls. i :.' Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri l^ •:, : '.Judge'',1 lll!•]FI| VW"!^