-f^. .^Si: ^. *' H^ .^w /y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WPLC 1 No.999/2008 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1 Ashok Kesharwani, s/o Late Shri Hajarilal, 50 years, R/o Manendragarh, Talisu Mau.endragarh, District Koriya(CG) 2 Vijay Kesharwaai, s/o Late Shri Hajarilal, 48 years, R/o Maaendragarh, Tahsil Manei^ragarh, District Koriya(CG) yersus 1. State of Cliliattisgarh, Through The Secretaiy, Revenue Departaieut Maataalaya, Raiupr(CG) 2 The Sub Divisional Officer(Rev) Mauendragarh, District Koriya (CG) 3 Sukal Siugh, S/o Ramlal Goad, R/o Ward No.3, Manendr^arh, Tah. Maaendragarh, District Koriya, 4 Preiua Bai, wd/o Bhagwan Das Gond, R/o Ward No. 4, Maaendragarh, Tah. Maaendragarh, Distnct Koriya. Appearance : Shri P.DHpaJkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Prafull Bharat, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Goveminent Advocate for the State on advaace copy. ORALORDER 118.02.20081 SUHIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioners submits that ra fhe year 1991, a proceediag under Section 170-B ofthe M.P. Land Revenue Code was iaitiated ia relation to the same laad and it has ended in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, agaiu ia fhe year 2001, a siuular proceediug imder Section 170-B was uutiated in relation to fhe sacae laad aad after tekiag objection by fhe petitioners regardiag its niamtainabiUty, the proceediag was dropped. Now this is for fhe third tirnc when for the same li B ilftlSUB '..<•"' V. ^y ^ls2^^^;^^ ^^.-S:ri^?^-'!-ftf W.P.(C)No.999/2008 laad, a third proceediag under Section 170-B ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code has been initiated. He submits that the reply takmg such objection has ah-eady been filed before the concemed Sub Divisional Officer, but stiU fhe S.D.O. is continuiag wifh. fhe proceeding. In the facts aad circumstances of tfae case, when a proceeding under Section 170-B of fhe C.G. Laad Revenue Code is stiU pendiag before fhe S.D.O., I am not iuelmed to interfere ia fhis writ petition at this stage. However, since fhe petitioners have already taken the ground regarding earlier two decisions ia their reply, as stated by leamed counsel for the petitioners, it is observed fhat fhe concenied S.D.O. shaU take noti.cc of the these facts aad shaU dispose of fhe inatter iu accordance wiffa law. Wifh fhe above observations, tliis petition stands fiiiaUy disposed of. - Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunlta