\ ;^;--'r:'.<-^J..T^ i^ ~"'~'!'"g r x ^-^,/ /, '^^^ }.> HJGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUI Qt HON'BLE SHRt R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J.J Pefitioneri AmbiKa Prasad Dewangan, son of Late Dwarika Na$h Dewangan, aged sbout 44 years, residence of Balgapara, Near Shitla Mandir, Ourg,. Chhattisaarh. YashDal Kumar Dewanaan, son of Late Dwanka Nath Dewangan, agsd about 41 years, residsnce of Baiflapara, Near Siiitla ivlandlr, uurg, Chhattisaarh. Ku. Usha Ciwangan, dauahter of Lste Dwarjka Nath Dswangan, agsd about 48 yesrs, rsslcsnss of Baigapara, Near Shltia Manulr. Durg, Chhattisgarh. Ku. Nirmata Dewangan, daughter of Late Dwarika Nath Dewangan, aged about 46 years, residence of Baigapara, Near Shitta Mandir, Dura, Chhattisgarh. tespondents State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Dspartment, Dau Kalyan Singh, ihawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Director, 1-ok- Shikshan Sanchanaiaya, Raipur, ^ l"S-S^^t£'a2^^Si*'i^ ^rfJB t9 5^i=itf^'h^»rt!3 S^ District Education Cifficer, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Shri OP Sahu, counsel for the appeiiants. Shri G.D. Vasvani, Go</t. Advoe t^ fnr fh^ o.t'st< fcS? S'-rf'i a.sS'S -t/tah^ fl fr Sx^ff^ g^ .af 5 (23'"August,2010) . -J The appellants filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the •respondent authorities to grant compensation for 0.07 decimal of iand recorded in the name of their father in Village - Selud, Distt. Durg, which has been used for construction of school building, without proper acquisition and without payment of compensation. 2- '^. '^. • .^ .f i~~.ih!^.^ ^;.-....-.,.^>" • 02. Ciaim of the petitioners is based &n the memo (Annexure P/1) addressed to the Dsrector, Pufalic Education D'rectorate, by the District Education Offlcer, in which it is mentioned that 0.07 decimal land in possession ot' the Government Schooi, Selud, over which permanent school bullding has been constmcted, was recorded in the name of their father and after his death, it is recorded in the name of his son in the present, as also on the demarcation report of Annexure P/2 of the Revenue Inspector and memo (Annexure P/4) of the principat to the District Education Officer. 03. However, the State, in its counter affidavit, has denied the contention of the petitioners that the government school is running on the petitioners' land. Aiong with the return, memo of Tehsildar, Patan dated 3 January, 2009 (Annexure R/1) and order dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure R/2) passed in a revenue case, whereby eartier order by the then presiding officer, by which the map has been corrected, has been set aside, after seeking permlssion from the Sub Divjsional Officer to review its earlier order, have been annexed. 04. Learned counsel for the appeliants submits that the Tehsiidar has passed the order of Annexure R/2 in the year 2009 and the Stete has changed its stand after an inordinate deiay. This aspect has not been considered in the impugned order. 05. Heard learned counsei fbr the appeltants and perused the tmpuuned 06. The leamed Singte Judge, on due consjderation of the pieaciings and documents annexed thereto of the respective parties, has heid that the disputed question of title and ownership is invotved in the case and the same can be decided by a competent jurisdictiona! civil Court and accordingly, dismissed the petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to teke recourse to the competent jurisdictiona! civil Court to establish their title and possession over the land in question. We are in agreement with the reasonings assigned by the iearned Singte Judge for dismissing the writ petition and we find no substance in this writ appeai, the same desewes to be and is, accordingiy, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- K.N. Chandrakar Judge