^^ u ^c'c^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATVRE AT BILASPVR( CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION N0, C]>5G<^> OF 2003 / PETITIONER {APPELLANT) Goha Ram» so'n of Mohan Ram» aged about SO years, resident of / Vilia@^"N>Kestara»Tehsi'i . and District-Jashpur»(C»©») VE R S¥ S ^ RESPONDENTS ORIGINAL NON-APPLICANTS l* smt^ Jagpati Baii wife of shri Nand Kvmar Ram^ resldent of ¥'ill^g€-Khoksoteen|0ra» Tehsil and District->Jash@a2w» (C,G<) ^><^<: 2« The Tehsiidar, Manora»District-Jashpur,{C<»G») ^^^ 9^^ • ...-^V^y' ( Eevenae) ,Jashpur.(C«G») ^^^ ^•<Qi^'*'.^^ < 3* The sub Divislonal Offleer, .^^'&>>"' ^f" 5^*' | $ 4. The Revenue Board,Chhattisgarh» •"*' { Bllaspur,(C«G») '^-" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE/227'OF THE a^L^L CONSTITUTION OF ZNDIA* ^ XI-HC-22 "s^ Tqpn<7p?, ^:fteTT^, f^Tra^'< C) \0 ^..to.(>....3.S.o^..L^> 200 '^^8?' ^ K^F^Tlt^- ?P:lNT^?fiTf jorder dated 18-8-2003 passed 1 .. jBilaspur toy which the secon<a '^TSif^T^ ^TR^f "4 ft^ ll^TcK ^T ^Tf^TH ^Ht^F 2-1-2004 Sferi Malay Kuiaar Bhad4r<i^ couiiQel for the petitioner® Shri Sanil Sinha» Add^tional Advocate General takes inotlce fcr respondents 2»3 a4d 4o Heard OB admissiono ! By this petltion flle4 under Artlcles 226/227 of the Jconstitutlon of Dndia» the p^tltioner has challenged the by the Board of Revenue^ appeal flled by the petitioi er bearing number 7/A-70/2002-2 <^03 has been disraissed, Brief facts leading tc^ fljling of this petitlon are that the agrlcultural land b^ 4.193 hactres of village Kes4ra, P.H. No. 14» R.N. Circle |Manora^ Tehsil Jashpur was p4rchased by respondent No.l from Iher mother Smte RlkhibaS thrcj |dated 7-6-95 and accordingly aring Khasra No«29, total area ^ugh th<e registered sale deed vide order dated 28-2-97 the |name of the respondent NOol ^as enteSed in the revenae records in place of her mother RAkhii^aio Against that order the petitioner moved an appeal »|hieh was dismlssed by the S»D»0< |vide order dated 15-9-98 and |confArmed the order passed by ithe Naib Tehsidfdar dated 28-^-97. Thereafter respondent NOol jfiled an application unde^ Sejction 250 of the Chhattlsgarh jLand Revenue Code, 1959 beforje Ttosildar, The Tehslldar y-^£- + XI-HC-22 + ^^ -s^ ^i^iid^, ^-ftwT?, f^roy Ufq^TT •M 200 • ^IT^T^T f^lf^'^it^T ^ti^^Tit^ ^t¥T ^Tf^ "2- ^^^q^. -^p^ -^ f^^t IJ^T^R ^ 3TFW 3^?f after hearing the parties pa^sed an order dated 5-11-2001 against whlch the petitiQaer SoD^Oo^ Jashpur Nagar and In raoved an appeal before the turn the SeDoOo dlsmissed th® lappeai vide order dated 9-l0'j-2002< Agalnst which the second appeal jpetitioner inoved/before ttae ^evenue Board which carae to b® jdlsmissed bythe Revenue Boar<|lo A perusal of the laslj. paragraph of the impugned order jshcws that the petitioner ha^ moved the Civil JUdge, Class-ll jJashpur Nagar and filed a su4t before that court for jdeclaratioa and title oa the jland in question and also for |declaratAon of null and void jof the sale deed dated 7-8-95 jexecuted by th® naother of resjpondent No,l and also for |s®tting asld® the order pass«|d by the SoDoO, dated 15-9-98 jand also seeking order for la^intaining the possession of the [petitloner and perraanent InJi^actAon against respondent NO,I. JFhe Revenue Board reached to ^he cotocluslon that since the |e tltioner has already raoved ^efore the Civil Court for ^eclarafcAon of the tltle and t-he orders of th® TehsiJdar and \ ^•D.o. are based on the recor|as and, therefore, in the second ^ppeal those orders cannot bei set-asideo j Durlng the course of atguraents, learned couasel for bhe petitloner very franlcly a<|taitted that the teraporary 4Jajunctioa applicatlon has already beenrejected by th^ ^^ „£&„ ,.,< • XI-HC-22 -^^ ^T^Mqf^ 'g^PTg, f^Riy 2-7 ) WR^IT W^ST^ '"^ 200 3Ti^T^T Mi.ch 'ST^T 9hHi<^ Trf^T Barve/ 3T{^i'^TFW ^rfer -3- Civil Court< In view of the abo^e, the civil sait as mentioned order, I am of the opinloii able to make out a ease jurisdiction by the court Constitution of India* to be dismissed and the sAae t, the petitioner has already flled im the previous part of this that the petitioner has not been fc^r exercj.sing of extraordinary [under Articles 226/227 of the Thjerefore, this petition 1s liable is dismissed< '^prf^pft7! 'RTR^ff ^ f^Tst ^^Tl ^STf^R ^H^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [-q^-^f^ ^