HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmONNO. 513 of20&2 Petitioner Naract Singh Rajput, aged about 42 years, S/o Gambhir Singh Rajput, resident of village Kokhabod. Patwari Halka No. 30. Tehsii Saja, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Respondents ^.-^ Versus 1. State of ChhatUs^arh Ihrough the Deparbnent of Revenue, D.K.S. Buyding, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Additkmal Colleetor, Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3. Sub Divisionat OfRcer (Revenue), Sa^a, Disftict Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4. Tehsitdar, Saja, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5. Nand Kumar Rajput. S/o Dashrath Singh Rajput 6. Gyani Singh Rajput, Sto Dhurandhar Singh Rajput 7. Kumar Singh Rajput, S^o Lakhan Singh Rajput 8. Sanju Rawat, S/o Samaru Rawat. 9. ^shnu, S/o Khedu Rawat 10. Tope Singh. S/o Bharat Singh 11. Daulat Singh, S/o Tope Singh 12. Nagendra Singh Rajput, S/o Kamta Singh Rajpyt No. 5 to 12 are residente of village Kohtaibod, Tehsil Saja, Dsstrict Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA Single Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotrl Present:- Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate for the petitioner. Mfes Deepalj Pandey, Panel lawyer for Ihe r^pondents^tete. QRDE^ (Passed on this 18th day of July, 2007) 1. The petitioner, who is a resident @f vlllage Kokhabod, Patwari Halka No. 30, Tehsil Saja, Disfrict Du^g, claims to te wtally interested in the matter as a prwate pesponctents No. 5 to 12 are ^* indulging into ttie construcUon of temple on part of Khasra No.206 in vitlageKokhabod. The petitioner. by this petition, seete a writ of eerttorari questionjng the settlement of Jand in favour of Ifte respondents No. 5 to 12 by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as •the Code. 1959") Be that as it may. the dispute involved in the (Mreswit petiti©nis in the nature of land disputes which can be deatt v^th under the provisions of the Code, 1959. If the petitioner has any grievance against the order passed by the Tahsildar w by the Additienal Collector, he may very weil approach the superiw frftonal i.e. Board of Revenue. The petltioner has not established semblance of any right or breach thereof, invoking extraordinary jurisdtctton of >is Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, thus, there fe no merit hi the case. The writ petition is accordingly dlsmissed summarily. -^- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge