v<. ^-»i -^^^ I'l, Cl^-;- c^>,/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l W.P. fC ) N0. C1 6 /2006^ PETITIONER ^ ,^:y^y' w RESPONDENTS ^Manoharlal Patel S/o. Balram Patet, Caste- Aghariya, aged about4-^ Years, Resident of village Ankira, P.C. No.33, R.I. Circle Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. The Board of Revenue Through : Chairman, Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur. 2^ The District Collector District Jashpur (C.G.). 3. Sarpanch/Secretary / Gram Panchayat Ankira,. District Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARtICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA s' B XI-HC-78 *11*(^1 fli+ll<h 3^'^Tpn^ra', y>Ti1<ilie, (sidw^< ^^f^^^%^. ^ 200 {'?T<45|<»»(^i^^) ^T^T^rf^TW craTsn^sw^ ^iTW^r-STI^T ^T^f^frrw^ff^te^" <^T^n: ^3Tf^T3TT^T <]• 25.1.2007 Mr< R. Pradhan, Advocate Heard. This petition is directed (Annexure P-1) passed by the| revision petition preferred by order of the Collector dated 9*1( Learned counsel for the No*3 has seiected the site for which is a grass Sand reserved adjacent to the house of the the petitioner that no construcj- land without diverting the user| the easementary right of the However, the Coliector vide ordt set aside the stay order eariierj and the same has been upheld b)| I have heard iearned coul the Impugned order. It is not in dispute th4' proposed on the government iar^< f|or the petitioner. obainst the order dated 31.10.2006 Board of Revenue whereby the ^he petitioner herein against the t.2004 has been dismissed. etitioner submits that respondent ;onstruction of Panchayat Bhawan, For the purpose of burial and a!so p€|titioner. It is the further case of tion can be carried out on a grass and by the proposed construction tetitioner is likeiy to be affected. ir dated 8.10.2004 (Annexure P-2) granted in favour of the petitioner the Board of Revenue, ise! for the petitioner and perused the construction in que^tion is I, though the same is a grass bnd. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^TT^T^rf^TT^ ^l $h^T^ Roshan/- 3^ ••*<Nlfl<<, ^Tti^JI<i, icl^iy^ *<IKdl sb^lch ^ 200 3Tri{?Tq^? (l^3^sr) ^<TTW;Rf?cT3TT^T -L. So far as the objection of th^ being permitted without chang the revenue authorities to to 237 (2) of the Land Revenue user, as the construction in purpose. Other objection tab construction of said Panchaya the petitioner is likely to be a1 petitioner to take recourse under the easementary right b| There is no Jurisdiction^ caliing for the interference b^ Constitution of India. The pel to be dismissed and the same cbl^fcn41^ ^i^crtT ^*fe^ ^TCTT ^3Tf^R'3TT^T petitioner that thc construction is ^ of user is concerned, it is open for ^e appropriate steps under Section Code for the purpose of change of q|jestion is admittediy for the pubiic [r\ by the petitioner is that by the Bhawan/the easementar/ right of Fected is concerned, it is open to the |nder the law to establish his right rfore the competent court. error in passing the impugned order this Court under Article 227 of the ition being devoid of substance liable dismissed in iimine. Sd/- DhiiendraMishra Judge