ffip— ftasi Wff^ illa'1 ii^ss: ^tfl^ Sii. sj%ii WsS- msm "I ililE.lt- l'Si; S.B_: a&aaBmMBilBB@^BUiijMiUM»ms CoatenirtOaac t^ VE?FtFK (ES. ICBSyONDBHT Narayan Prasad Pmidey •Vennw: • 1,. 11 Br. RohttYaday PB<dtloa:«iadefc8«?$toa«ia^al"A^^^BtemBjrt,a>IS©BUtttfcAiefe^aR: •u/^flU^lEtS^oiJliffiilgiiSiW^BKBllKili^ :F^\: Ai»D<itffiaac«:'.: :'; :'",' '.'..!, ! • ' .'' • . ' • ShriCtmndi^sti^ffiivasta^txnm^I&a'flie Shri G.D. Vaswaai, couasel fiMFitorespondeirt. QSXK.- (E^ged on 8.02.2011) Heard. 2. Leamed ccn.insel^ the petiticaawsttbaiits ttiBttiiis (^mrt^ order dated 28al Jiaauffl^, 2009 passed in W.P. (©)No.StS/aWQ, dlrartied fhat (he petitloner sfaatt malre & iepseseja!6BSBssins^gSa re^xmdoat Na2 tfasi'^ ^fiw TOliefswhi^ hase.lie^ ta the petltaf^and <m su^represerata^^ •^. .: .• '• •' '.. . •.•' ' ." . ' ,: • . . • .- shafl be decided l^ (he eoxicen^ipespon^ni^wWBtai a; feur DKmths finm fhe 3a^ ofweelpt accOTdance with Jaw. The^etMxmCT-^^^ coiicenKd respondent l.e. the eolleGtor, R^ur (xn 7>.2»ao0 Staatis QcweFrama^ vlde meriro ds^ed 2.%^1®dtrect^ si'y'39'^ /y^. "^ ...y' ?? ....^-._ ^l j 8,-..^3iAy^ g '%a,^fc^' -2- Collector to take decision in fhe matter. It is submitted that the retum fHed by (he respondent, it is revealed tteit the respondent has drawn proceedings and passed certain orders in purported compliance ofthe order passed by thls Court, wtaereby, a part of land comprised tn khasra No. 100/01 of patwecrl hcdka. No.76, Revenue Circle-Mandir Hasoud, has been se^rated finm the record of Nistccr Pc^rak in exercise ofpower under Secticni 237 (2) offhe Chhattisgprh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and considermg the report dated 9.7.2009 of the Sub Divlsional Officer, it has been proposed to correct fhe records of khasra No. 100/01, re- numbered khasra No. 15, 24 & 50 admeasi.ni^ 0.489 hectares. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that by such declsion taken by (he Collector, theclaim ofthe petltioner has not been fully accepted and (he petitioner is eatitled to larger area of land to be separated fl-om the record of Nistar Pcctrdk and his name is reqi-ured to be mutated. 4. Ori the other hand, leamed counsel for the Tespondent submits that after fhe order was passed by this Court, various proceediags were drawn and finally the Ctollector has taken fhe dedsion in the matter of the petitioner, which is disclosed fl"om the order sheets placed on record along wifh the retum. He submits that fhe matter relatit^ to petitioner has been considered at Itoe leyel of the Collector and certata ordera have beea passed, dlrectmg separation of certain land fi"om the record of JVtetar Pcctrak and on "%. 'i.,'-. ^ that basis, it has been proposed to correct to records. His further submission is that the respondent has taken decision in the matter and all other requirements of correction of records are to be done by the subordinate aufhorities, whlch have already been proposed. In his submission, the order p^sed by this Court has been complied with by fhe respondent to the best of his understandlng on the facts and laws appUcable. 5. Taldng into consideration the submissions made by leamed counsel for fhe parties and the records offhe case, I find that the Collector has drawn proceedit^s and passed calain orders in fhe matter on 9.7.2009. Therefore, the order of ttiis Court has been compfled with , fhough, belatedly. Leamed counsel for the respondent submitted fhat the manner ia which fhe proceedixigs have been drawn and various reports were reqidred fi-om various authorities, the delay is not intentional, The proceedings which have been placed on records show fhat after fhe orden of ttris Court was passed and the matter was placed before Ifae aufhority, the autharity drew proceedings, reports were summoned and then certain orders have been passed by fhe Upper Oollector and fhe same has been approved by (he Collector also. Therefcxre, in the opinion of fhis Court, it does not appear to be a case of wfflftil disobedlence of fhe order of this Court. The rule is fherefore dlschaiiged. \ 6. If fhe petitioner has any grievance wtth fhe decision so taken by V fhe CoUector including a grievance fhat fhe entire case of fhe '^. -4- ^ petiitioner has not been considered properly, It would be open fcn- the petitioner to take recourse to eypropriate remedy as may be avaflable to him under (he law. 7. With fhe aforesaid observations, the petitton is flaalty dlsposed of. ftFwreen Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge