<s»' (^-'^^2 A- IN THEHON'BLEHIGH GOURT OF CMHATTISGARM ATBILASPUR WRITPETITION fCY N0. \\^ /2010 PETITIONER '^' .. ^'^' ..-•" 10 ..••' .'' .^^ l^:^°./ ^•^.s^" ..^%y- ^..^•- y RESPONDENTS ^. Braj Kishor Pandey S/o. Late Motilal Pandey, aged about : 59 years, R/o. Darogapara, Raigarh, District : Raigarh (C.G-). VERSUS /l] Vinay Kumar S/o. Late Rashik Lal, aged about : 65 years, R/o. Hirapur Raigarh, District : Raigarh (C.G.). -^] Yashwant Kumar S/o. Late Rashik Lal, aged about : 55 years, R/o. Palace Road Raigarh, District : RaigarM (C.G.). .3] Bharat Kumar S/o, Late Gopinath, aged about : 59 years, R/o. Near Gayatri Mandir, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.). ^ ^4] Harishankar S/o. Late Gopinath, aged about : 55 years, R/o. Darogapara, Raigarh, District : Raigarh (C.G.). / 5] Krishna Kumar S/o. Late Madik Lal, aged about : 53 years, R/o. Baikunthpur, Raigarh, District : Raigarh (C.G.). /6] Fakir Mohan S/o. Madik Lal, aged about : 45 years, R/o. Baikunthpur, Raigarh, District : Raigarh (C.G.). /7} Chhotelal S/o. Late Murlidhar Pandey, aged about : 70 years, R/o. Indravati Colony, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). /8] Ashok Kumar S/o. Late Murlidhar Pandey, aged about : 68 years, R/o. Indravati Colony, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). ^ FR- uS /9] The Collector Raigarh, District : Raigarh (C.G.). /10] State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTIGLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTltUTION OFINDIA. i^s^^i^^us.ii^.i^wiSK^iisysSSssTaecjaiiysasi^;-iS;s;.^t'»i,•sfSSaj-sVsii&BSSiSSii a s^^tt ^alS<t@ ':;i V- HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PETmQNER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition <Ct No.lirr / 2010 Braj Kishor Pamley Versus Vinay Kumar aml dhers. Shri Pushperalra Kumar Patel, counsel tw the priitioner. Shri Vinod Telam, P.L.for Uie State/respondenteNo. 9&10. , WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICIE 227 OF THE CONSTmmON OF INIMA • • •. ' ! •r;:!:.':":T.,,;SK. ORALORDER (25.03^010) The challenge in this wrft petition is to the leese executed in favour of tate Muri'idhar Pandey S/o Chintamani<m 08-02-1978 (Annexure P/1). The petftion thus suffers from inordinerte and unexplained delay and laches. (2) The avennents made in the petftion raises olher questi<»is relating to the rghts and title of the parties to oUam the sul^ct tease or to remain in occupatitm of ttw premtees. (3) ThisCourt is ofthe opinion that suchdisputed questions cannot be gone into inthis petition under Articte 227 of the Cohstitution of India. The pet'rtioner, if so advk»may fesoA to his remedy by inftiating appropriate proceedmg beforetheCourtofcompetentjuris<fiGtioFi?» (4) Wih this observation, the writ p^ition is dismissed. Sd//- PrashantKumar Mishra Judge