[/C(61/ fN THE HIGH CGURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WP. C NO. K7 3 12606 /f—‘awan Kumar Agrawat, Aged about 4? MA years: Sic. Radheshyam Agrawai, Ria. ~Q .«f. Ramanuigarr: Surguia {CG} Rnacx, Ambikapug Dismct VERSUS State 0f 6hhattisgam! Thmugh: Sesretafy, Reveaue Degarfment 0K3. Bhawan, Raépur. Disxrict Raiput {CG} Vffay Kamar Agrawai, Aged 5.5 years, Sic. Taracha'nd Agrawah Aiay Kumar Agmwak Aged' 56 years“ Sla‘ Tarachané Pgrawag Saniay Kumar Agrawaf, Agecf 45 yearav Sfcz. Tarachand Agrawai, Ahhgy Kumar Agrawat, Age<i 42 yew; $io. ‘farachanci Agfawak, Krishna Kumar Agrawak Aged 46 years‘ Sfa‘ Tarachané Agrawaf, Resp‘ Ne‘ 2 ta 6 are resiéem a? Gaddipara, Ambikapm‘, District Stirgtiia (CG) Ku. Nirusha Agrawat, Die. Ramesh \ Chandra, Agrawat, Aged ahaut 2Q years‘ Rm. Wyanagan Ambikapur, Disfrieé Surguga {CG} W8} Kai!ash Kumar Budhiya ick Rama‘shwar Fras’ad Budhiyay Aged about 52 yéarsk Rio. Sadat Road: Amb§kapua Eisiriet Surguja (CG)- PE'HTIONER \ \ -‘ 4 S “’E‘f! P§T!T!Q.N! UAmER A N QGNSTITUTIQN OF INDIA Ani! Kumar Agrawal, Aged abggt 45 years? Bajranglal AgrawaL R/Q; Jawahar Market Ambikapgr, D551; Surgqmcgg Gavernment PG. CcHege, Ambikapur, Through: its Principal; Ambikapur; District Surguja (CG) Beard 9f Revenue-s Qhham‘maa‘: BiQaspur, District Bilasgw (cg) Sum! Kumar Agfawal, 5/9: Bajranglal Agrawal, Aged about 4Q years, Rig. Ambeékar Qhowk Ambikapur; District Surguia (QC?) CQIIector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG: ‘ TggLg 22? GE Hi5 u~_.. :E R XI—HC-78 HW,WW,W w ' .H«..@...<gc)..g.~j7n3 WWI-cl? HE ,200 a Wm (13W) WWW wmm mm€fwm §iwm Emmwm 5-1-2007 Shri Gurudav Sharan iearn ed counsel for the petitioner Slu‘i Utkiush Vanna, .lcamed Dy. G.A. for ths State/rasxgondmts. Shri Manoj Paranjpc, karma counsei for respondant No. 3/caveator. This petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2006 passed by Board of Revenue of Annexure P/8 where by the Board aiiowing the revision preferred by respondents No. 2 to 6 has set aside the order passed by the Coiiector and upheid the orders passed by the Tehsiidar a the Sub Divisionai OEicer. ' From perusai of the ord impugied it appears that there was a dispute between the patties with respect t situation of certain piece of land in revenue map. it is not in dispute that the petitio er was not a party to the said proceedings before the Revenue Board. The giev ce of the petitioner is that by the said order the revenue maps have been so ame ded that the position of the iand recorded in the name of the petitioner is not depic ed in the revenue map. Ihave heard 1eamed eouns ifor the petitioner. There is no dispute that th petitioner is recorded owner of the land and he is also in possession of the same. If e'is aggieved by any order of the revenue Courts passed behind his back, he always apply before the competent revenue authorities for demarcation of the recorded in his name in accordance with Land Revenue Code and the Court sha‘ decide the same and do the needful to redress his gievance. Since the petitioner s not a party before the Tribunal against the impugred order which is admitte y passed behind his back, no case is made out for interference with the aforesaid or er in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 2'27 of the Constitution of lndia. n e c d a XI—HC—78 \ wk WW, WW, W3? Wm' MKQQH‘ “33% 200 C WW(> W