'/^(\ laiM :^.-^»^ < ^^.^^1.? ^3:^<7* ^*fc?dc .^f-s ^'5 ^ ^. tca*«Tl^<:*a .^-sl ^. -?3tti,» ^ ^ ^^ ^F; ^: ^i ,?^1 s"s=a?t HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BiLASPUR Writ Pesition No. 14 of s S Ram Narayan S/c. Narbada. aged sbout 35 ysars, R/o. Viliaye - ^rem Nagar, ^l ahsii Soorajpur, Sarguja. Hukui"i Sai S'o. about 35 years, R;'o. Viilage Prsm Nagar, Tahsii Sooralour. Revti Raman S;o. Suncier Sal. aged about 34 years, R/o. Village Prem Nagsr, Tahsii Soorajpur, Sarguja. Bhaivaiai S/o. Ramkumar, aosd a&out 37 years, R/o. Vlllage Prem Nagar, Tahsii Soorajpur, sarguja. Deodharl, S/o. Budhram, Aged about 40 yeare, R/o. Villags Prsm Nagar, Tahsii Soorajpur, Sarsuia. 6' i } Snivrani o/o. Buanram. Aged about 39 year-s, R/o. Vil!age Prem Nagar, Tahsil Soorajpur, ^ssr^s^a '^^l*1 s -s ''^J nk^t'' Laxmsn S/o. Pavan Kumar. aged about 36 yesrs, R/o. Viiiase Prem Nagar, Tahsii soorajpur, Sarguja. r~i\ 'al Baijnath S/o. Ramkheiawan. Aged about 45 years, R/o. Viilase Prem Nasar. TahsiS c^r)A?air'i'ir %iSi"ni ii-a ^»^^^i^J^rft^? ^ ^^Sf.I ^^J^i* Sitaram S/o. Ramkheiawan, Aged about 45 ysars, R./o. Vsliage r-Tem Nagar, iahsii SocrsiDUf. SsTOu'a 10) Sooraj S/o. Shobnit. aged abou't 44 years, R/o. Vkii'ags Prsm Nagar, Tahsii Soorajpur, Saraula s'alii ^i^^ll^^ NIIB sw Respondents Versus 1) 2) Siate of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Sarguja. Dwarika S/o. Deogeer, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Village Prem Nagar, Tahsil Soorajpur, Sarguja. 3) Kishori S./o. Dw.'arika, aged about 38 years, R/o. Vliiage Prem Nagar, Tahsii Soorajpur, ^sirciiiia /.\ Banwari, S/o. Deogeer, Aaed about 50 years, R./o. Vlllags i-Tem Nagar, iansii soorajpur, Ssrou s, 5) Bhandari Sio. Deogeer, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Vjljage - rrem Nagar, i ansii soorajpur, ^^mir^. •Wt^UJWi. 8) Sub Divisionai Magistrate, Soorajpur, Sarguja. (Wrii Pet'tion unaer Article 227 of the Constitution or India fo- issusnce of a writ of csrtlorsn. orQhibltlon. nisncsmus stc. sndA^rfbrfufthsrsDQrQonstsdlfsctiQps or ordsrs) >B: Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri rsserit: Shri Pr^shant Jsysswst; Sr. AdvQcats with Shri Ali Asg^r counsei for the DeiiTioners. -Shrl V.V.S. Murt.hv. Ov. Advocste1 G&ne'rsi for rssDond&nts NQ.I & 5 State. Shri Ashok Kumar Shuxia, counse! for raspondsnts No. 2 to 5. »assedon 26'" Aorii, 2Q07S Lsarned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute with regard to possesslon of the property in dispute ;n respect of 5.695 hectares of land snuated in Patwari Halka No.97 of villaae Prem Nagar, was considered bv Sub Divisionai Officer under the Drovisions of Section 145 of the Cods of Criminai Procedure, and, thereafter In the ^^ •-; Court of Additionai Sessions Judge, Sarguja. The matter was dismissed bythe AdditionaiSessions Judge, Sarguja, as not maintainabie. 2) Be that as it may, learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute cannot be resoived in the present proceeding. The petitioners be granted libertyto take recourse 1:0 appropriste forum. 3) in vsew of the aoove statement made bv lesrned counsei appearing for the petltioners, thls petition is disposed of witn ilberty to take iegai recourse io the forum that mav be ava'iabie to fnem. The oetitioners are furtner at li'gerty to ooint out pendencv of •ihis petll:i whiie makina an aoolication for condonation of aelay, n anv. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -f