‘ 1 J/ F/ U‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTIsGARI-I / WRIT PETITIogI No. 1654* OF 2065 BETWEEN Dev Prasad S/o Late Bhikam Prasad Mishra, aged about 55 years, resident of Village Sirgitti, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) PETITIONER .“The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Through its President, Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). . Collector, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, Tahsil and «u ii District Bilaspur (CG) V Tahs1ldar Bllaspur, Tahs1l and Dlstrlct Bilaspur (CG) ’ GaJanand Awasthi S/o Ramkhllawan Awasthy, res1dent of V111age Slrgtti, Tahsxl and Dlstr1ct Bllaspur (CG). ,5 RESPONDENTS y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE /V . rm XI—HC-22 EW,W,W WW wViégL;a zoog‘, Smt. Rcnu Kochar, coul Shri Parag Kotecha, Pax Heard on admission. The petitioner has pre: 226/227 of the Constitutim Tahsildar, Bilaspur dated ( O cer, Bilaspur dated 20—05- passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh. Thc case of the petition of petitioner’s father namely 1 0.07 aCm situated in Khasm Halka No.23, R.I. Circle, Bik Ramla] on a sale considerati( executed on a stamp of Rs. shown in the revenue recon Prasad, who was the then M total area of Khasara No.51 Malgujar Ramlal during his other persons including Ay purchased 9 dismil land. The of said Ayodhya Prasad and death of Ayodhya Prasad his their names. Thereafter the p in the year 1984_ from the lsel for the peu‘tioner. el Lawyer for the Respondents /’ State. E‘erred this writ petition under Article 1 of India questioning the order of 6—12-2001, oxder of Sub Divisional 2003 and also onler dated 21-01—2004 er is that on 02- 10- 1948 elder brother lyodhya Prasad purchased a land area a No. 511/01, Mouja Sirgitti, Patwari aspur horn the then Malgujar namely m of Rs. 85/- and the sale deed was l/-. However, the said land has been l as grass land in the name of Devi algujar. ,According to Khasara No.P—1 .1/01 was 2.18 acres and the then time sold 54 dismil of land to various hva Prasad as well as Sahasram who could not be mutated in the name died in the year 1976. Even after the gal heirs also could not be mutated in titioner herein purchased the said land al heirs of said Ayodhya Prasad in ' ' d g W. mw‘mw WWdWW ‘ QEWW 11-07-2005 XI—HC—22 consideration of Rs. 1,000] -, arid he also could not be mutated in his . namC. Respondent No. 5 made a complaint to the Tchsildar against the petitioner that he has encroached upon the government grass land and consuucted a house upon which a Case No.2/A13/2000— 2001 was mgistered between Onkar Prasad Vs. Dev Pxasad. However, the said cass has been dismissed for want of prosecution, therefore, the elder brother of respondent No.5 again made a complaint before the Tehsi and in that complaint case the Tehsildar passed the order o dispossession of the petitioner and - imposed fine of Rs.400/ —. The etitioner in view of order of Tahsildar deposited the nne amount on 3—12-2001; The petitioner challenged Sub Divisional OM}; Bilaspur by t the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of Sub visional Omcer the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of R venue and Board of Revenue withoutq appreciating the material facts available dimissed the appeal. I have perused the ord r of Sub Divisional 0&cer, Bilaspur dated 20.5.2003. that after:- hearing counsel for .the petitioner herein the Sub .Di 'sional O$cer perused the record of court below and on the basis f special enquiry report reached to the conclusion that the petitioner and complainant i.e. respondent No.5 the impugned order before way of preferring an appeal, Perusal of order show WW l i u XI—HC—22 hearing as well as also to lead evidence. Against that oxder the petitioner appmachcd the Board of Revenue, who has also ammed the said OMer. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already hled a civil suit in the court of lealned Civil Judge for grant of permanent injunction in which State Government is also‘a patty. civil court and secondly, the In the hrst instance, the etitioner has already approached the is concurrent hnding of the SDO (Revenue) & Boatd of Revenu that the petitioner has encmached upon the government land, W ereas the petitioner is claiming. th said land to be of his own. In ’eW of the fact that disputed facts are involved in this case, which cannot be enquired into the writ jurisdiction, therefore, the peti 'oner is directed to avail appropriate remedy available to him under In View of the above, the Consequently, M.(W.)P. stand disposed of. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge law. ition stands dismissed. 0.2184/05 8t. LA. No.5283/05 also guitar; (diam) e e t