i! i.1r'rif i!;l: ] tt[i }• •IU w&^ ISIIiN KB|i|.1 \WM: l:;m \ S::;! ^ liifci :iil!^l&SiulBS;:aiiiilil6B SsM:si^.&UySt ^s&wt^v^s^SESMss'ysf'KsSsi^^syvsysv'tt- ^^'^!3SSI§!^SS!^lsS^iy^lII^^!B^!tlf^li'?^SM'^~ S^i^sSBiS 'Wsi g|a^ag^BiiEai8iS!Mniyw 6U^^Kri%tl^!l!MW if!B'RUBBiSSg!8Sicu!UE&s^ Kinani!iiM ^M®sN@3: '-^"s, •s^ ssyy^jS v'^^Sa^s:—3^& IIIIW'iMB%IEK8l!iP'J<a::>^iloo;3IR' ;lli'!'li'tSlll^fi8I^SI®re3:Ja3w»s:'9 !1 ^ISIiBIS-fSsS.-S^-..-.-^S-.-—'---„• •(i'Qi-gg'^EtniaBSB'qBj^^oLEisippuB •^fs.-'s ••.' .' .',': . •- : :..^- ^ :.'. . ••,' - • ,.. '. ^ i ;,1 @Sitatgm(Mgij 'jBpiisqs^qreM •g '("&'O^FtITtI:BBSw-fBN ""'(anaaiias^ja^Q'iBuoisiAicl.ctng ••17 ,i •(•Q-0)jnareg ll'^n'iQO-^iilO.nO <sn&A3y:jo[:pi®Qg:.•g. !! ':^U^'O^ PSHalEIBS:G'B18W'fla!NS'B. : -:]^lna^^EJa^: 'vscsfwSQf^afa.ii^^^cvfS/^s; !';j|i'|lt|Ks!'SE^)'^B.I^(|K^'<E>'/|i:''!ieM[Hl@1^ :;l''i^''I%"^;y;:;~: ^;!.''3:st' .'? ::'.'. |i-StSB;3 *iMt|S[rt@ 0^ wpiB'ts.reqo •s yl '('si'o)p'ws3aBSBsv3yi, lai.rtsip^ ;'giiB. tiaql^, 'B.cfu'Bg 'aFUTg) srreiaAS^ 't?#<QN' "H'd ''exefyas^ o/j 'IB^UB^I q/s urey tnurig •T: ili it" U 'M^ ^^i!w'..' ^ ^ ^' saa^aiiOdSaa [II iii;il snssaaA "('O'O) pvccttsass'BSfvyi 13I.]E)SlppUEI!Sqat'B.D(UBg-3li).IIO anuaAsy '(Bj'BtlB5[y)itiBA)iSB.re(f -sgB^iA p/j 'urejeSlEBo o/g jBittn^jK^n SBI^B jBuinXtiTBWH, aaNOULuaa m K8- eooe/ ^fs-z^ -'o NQi,ut.^;iJia@ua : ;;^-3)«m^TMi^,v?®ni^i®aFgFs^ @3!aBOiB»aHa, ^ :- .;,^-., .. .,^..;.^.,,^ L<*feflw •~<./~^...^—'-'-'l.'?l.'l.'"1^:'V''L.^'V.'\/..At-~>.- liBtflR H1GHCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kymar Mishra Writ Petition No.2251 of 2003 Petitioner Respondents versus Uttam Kumar alias Uttar Kumar Sumit Ram and others Present: Shri Suryakant Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.4 to 6. Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25th October, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. Dispute pertains to assertion, right and entitlement of one Bija Tree, which, according to the petitioner, was standing on his land bearing Khasra No.239, whereas respondent No.1 Sumit Ram, who was the owner of adjoining Khasra No.238, had cut the said Bija Tree sometime in the year 1999 by treating the said tree to be standing on his land. From the record, it appears that proceeding under Section 241 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was initiated against respondent No.1 and in the said proceeding, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed an order on 26-6-1999 imposing fine of Rs.200/- for cutting the tree without obtaining permission. The Halka Patwari seized the said tree and granted the corpus on Supurdnama to respondent No.2 Gharsundar Binj'war. \Respondent No.1 moved an application for obtaining the said tree, ?< '•w^yss3^.- ^^1^"' which was rejected by the Tahsildar. In the order of Tahsildar, it is observed that there was mistake in the Bundobast entries, which have been corrected on 29-1-2000 and as per the corrected record, the subject Bija" Tree is found to be standing on Khasra No.239 belonging to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund, which was partly allowed on 22-3-2002 (Annexure P-5). Respondent No.1 was directed to approach the Sub-Divisional Officer for decision on the entitlement of the corpus of the tree. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) thereafter passed an order in favour of respondent No.1 on 28-12-2002 (Annexure P-6). Against the earlier order ofthe Sub- Divisional Officer passed on 22-3-2002, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 6-5-2003 (Annexure P-9). The Board of Revenue refused to condone the delay of about one year in filing the appeal and consequently the petitioner's appeal was also dismissed. 3. Admittedly, the subject Bija Tree was fell down prior to 26-6- 1999 and on the said date, the Bundobast entries were not corrected. In Annexure P-4, it is mentioned that the Bundobast entries were corrected on 29-1-2000. Thus, on the date when the subject tree was fell down by respondent No.1, the part of the land bearing Khasra No.238 was bearing the subject tree and the revenue jentries were corrected later on. Thus, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not committed any illegality in directing that respondent \o.1 is entitled to the corpus of the tree. Moreover, the petitioner •^1 has not been able to explain and satisfy about the bona fides of the delay in filing the appeal before the Board of Revenue. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any substance. It is dismissed. r - - -_^.-.-—--— Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gop-' iS«^g:gsi»^> LtlU^ii!