:'^s c .<T'^ 0<3 03 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION N0.46C'^-- /2005 PETITIONERS ''1. Ramnarayan, aged about 45 years, sonofLate Kanwal Sai Caste Gond /• //*f-> ^^^- s'7./'^'?/' ..••'' ^ J^-'^A..--"" <%^?"" 4y ^',-t^0 s oS ^V^.^Q ^W^ cvs^ 10 --2. Prabhu Dayal alias Prabhunath, aged about 75 years, son of Bandhan Caste Gond 3. Prabal Dayal alias Prabal Sai, aged about 72 years, son of Shri Bandhan Caste Gond 4. Ram Prasad, son of Shri Bandhan, aged about 65 years, Caste Gond -5. Shivnandan, aged abqut 25 years, son of Late Bhoolan, Caste Gond 6. Smt. Jagriti Singh, aged about 37 years, Wife of Shri Ramlakhan Caste Gond All resident of village Fundurdihari, Banaras Road, Opposite T.C.P.C. Ambikapur, Police Station Subhash Nagar, Tah Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ^ . VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^•'1. 1-. /-5. ^ ^6. The State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The District ColleGfor, Surguja, Ambikapur, (C.G.) The Superintendent of Police Distriet Surguja, Ambikapur, (C.G.) The Police Station House Officer, Subhash Nagar (Ambikapur Dehat) Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) • Ratan Puri, son of Shobhnath Puri, aged about 65 years, Ex-Serviceman Naval Staff, resident of Gurudwara Ward, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Ashok Tiwari alias Bawa Pandit, aged about 45 years, resident of - Jarhagarh, behind Rashid Bus Owner's residencse, Ambikapur, District SurgujafC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, XI-HC-78 '.;wq:'iiti<<irt<<,;%^<!-l<*reFRriillMy ~^f"^^f'py _._, - LV? ''vlsLA.fo;¥- Tn''R5^^TT^""""""""""""''"''"""" %i^TR|^^itg^) 4fc0 ^200 3irtCTWf3'iici> a'airsn^sTri'titt SRnsR^iftgsii^?! 26.9.2005 5hri A.N. Bhakfa, counsel f( Shri Y.5. Thakur, 6ovt: Adv. The petitioners have prefer 226/227 of the Constitution oi respondent Nos.1 to 4 to investig^ under appropfiate provisions of la* Nos.5 &6 and their allies and to pi The case of the petitioneri bearing Khasro Nos.323/13 area situated at Vilkige Fundurdehari ond forefathers of the petitioi| possession of this lancl smce respondent No.5 herein got a Authorities by suppressing the possession of the sdid land. Wher^ this fact they made objection b\ inqiiteof that Pattd wos given fo 58 petitioners No.2 to 4 made settlement and issuance of Patht possession of the said land arid or| No.5 they have filed a civil suit, •<nifci<Ili i!*iol"^"ls''cl'<Rj<[^K ^RSlS^tfSK^l V o^" the petitioners. for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Jred this writ petition under Article India praying -tfierein to direct |ite the case by registering offence and take action against respondent (ovide police protection. is •rfiat there is a govemment tcuid 11.85 acre & 323/15 area 2.65 acres near ^mbikapur Town. The father hers No.l to 6 are in continuous 60 yearA In the year 1967-68 of that land fromlthe Revehue thdtpetrl'ioners had hever been in the petitioners came to know about ifore the Revenue Authorities, but responSen-f No.5. In the year 1957- a^plicdtions before the Tehsildar for Nt Palt-ha fcutt The petitioners are accountof oustivities of req»ondent s the revenue authbrities were not in conttnuous XI-HC-78 \j-CT:i-siitu<*i'8i,yt»OTl'tt«it»i,iRi*i<Hy<< 5(. ^in^ •••—••••••••••—•—•—•—^"^^2c>o \ . • .•••..' -:.^ . . .' . , .. . ^SI^fsR^i^t^®) 3II^?TWTft'li<t) (rar3ii^?ttt>»)i<b '\-- v-^"\— tdkingaction. However, thesaid petitionerS had prejferr-ed an Ambikapur and viye iorder 9.5.19 wt»sset aside, the matter was theh the matt-er is pending pendency of the suit responden petitioners from the said lond registered d9ainst respondent N 506 of the JPC. The petitioner Nos.5 & 6 are trying to disposi Nos. 1 to 4 are not ta|<in9 any acti Ihave heard learned counst As far as the question respondent Nos.5 & 6^ is conceme^l filed a suit they owi move the injunction in accordance with threatening & criminal activiti^s concerned, the petitioners are^ concerned Executive Magistntt'< respondent Nos.5 & 6 and if ony by them, +hen the petitioners ••prat'KsIl'i *fi*inf*lTR'd •(Fj|t<;y ^?giRpT?ii^Rt;' ^uit was dismissed dgairist which the <4>peat before the &i,strict Judge, .19^2 the judgment of the trial court renkuided back for fresh trial and since (fore the Civil Court. During the No.5 Js trying to dispossess the <|uid therefore, a crintinal case was lbs.5& 6 under Sections 448/34 & f furt'her case is that responden-t sss the petitioners btit respondent m ogainst them. j • for tlie petitioner. ; \f thpeatening of dispossessipn by I, when thepetitioners have already Civil Court for gnint of tempomry law. As for as the| questionof ss .of respondent Nos.5 A 6 are iat liberty to move before the te regarding keeping peace by ither criminal activities is committ'ed are at tiberty to move the police •7-M 51 M-cfl-rtqi^irto^s^.flii^iRiirit.iMy^ *tmv9t^ew aiI^?T(l^P('E!?^RE) ^F^ZtH) ail^TwR'ii* WIT3II^?T**fl* ^wi^y^l^- authorities fail to takeany acfio|i then the petitioners are at libertY tt-o^iiK^s^fee'-eOncemed Judicial Cdurt. •f/:' •^.iSii ^fit view%f the above, I airl ^..-.••'iffs^Q^S' ;-i-—-' •to m^e,,^^ ey^raardmary jur ConstitutiQn pf India. The petitjon ,;:.^,,.,aa,- , - '1', '' ' accordingly, dismissed. ; Cbnsequently, |M.OV.)P. No^783/2005& I.A. No. 8283/025 also stand dismissed. «Bi<<Fn<!l'iii*inl*ffi»cl'(Rit5(i'< ^31^11311^1 of the opinion that there is no case isdiction under Art'icle 226 of the is liable to be dismissed ond it is, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo ^ Judge iP/FS/2005-20,000 :'>° \? •If^.