Writ Petitiori (CHUO; 537 of 2009 Suleman Kotwar Slo‘ Thukro age 55 years vlo vmage Behrakhar Tahsu -Kunkun Distt Jasnpur (CG) ‘ Petitiéners 1 . ok Kotwar Slo Ciemert age 25 years, n‘o. vmage Charakhara TahsH Kunkur: Distt. Jashpm (Cb) Labnus Kotwar Sic. Lares uraon, age 57 years r/o vxliage Harradand Tah3ii Kunkuri, Distt Jashpur (CG) Telefor Kotwar s/o Johan age 57 years rlo Wage — Lodnaamba Tahsil Kunkun Dist Jashpur(Cf‘) Saturam Koiwar sxo Sanairam age 50 years {lo wiiage Dhudidad TahSIl Kunkuri Dist Jashpur (CG) Brumohan Kotwar sic nkaiu age 48 yers s19 Vmage Kahba Tahsli Kunkun DI$tL Jashpur (CG) Nestore Kotwan Sic. Andhru, age 58 vears rlo. viliage Ranpur Tahsil ~, BagichhafDistt Jashpur(CG}. ‘ Bhaguram Kotwa!‘ s’o Chhangu age 6 years rio wiiage Ranpur Tahsti Baglrhha Dist: Jashpur (CG) Vemus State of Chhatilsuarh through Secretary, Revenue Dept! DKS Bhawan Raapur (CG) The Coilector Jashpur Dlstt Jashaur (CG) Respondents (Writ Petition under Artcle 226 of Constituticn f lndi SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Mr. Sameer Sahu, sounsei for the petitioners. ' M_r. A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate Genera! for the State f :71"- v GRAL ORDER (Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finaiiy. 2) The case of the petitioners is that they are in possession of the lands which were in possession of their predecessors. The possession of the iands in question has been uninterrupted and' continuous The petitioners claim Bhoomiswami rrohts over the lands which have been grnted by the competent authority to their predecessors prior to 195 f HIGH COURT OF‘CHHATTESGARH23}LASPUR , L . t. t A , , . Q i o a) . 0 / 1 /)* Learned counsai appearing far the petiticners submi‘B tha€ the facts and question of iaw invoived in ihis pe‘dfioa as weii as the reiie? sought for are simiiar ta €ha’: of m Writ Petificn No.341 of 2062 {Fatte Singh arid aihers vs. The State of Shhattisgarh 8. others), which was disposeai of by this court by order dated 22““ February, 2607, m the faiiowing terms: 3‘) ”m the resuit this pe’imcn is (iisgaosed of with the direction :ha: the comoetent authority Shaii consider the case of the oetkéonere for grant of Bhomiswami :igh‘z, m eccofdance wéth iew after affording meme! oppe'rtunity e? heas'mg £0 the coneemed parties, within a period 0f ihree momhe fmm the daie of rece§pt of a copy of this order.” 4) Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispuie ihe above fact. However, he submits that iet the petitioners iiie separaie apoiieations hefore the concerned authoritv. 5) Accordingi‘y', the petiiioners are granted iiberty to ’Frie separate apoiications before the concerned authority, if so advised. 6) in view of the above, this petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 22-2-2007 passed by this court in the matte! of Fatte Singh (supra). No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge it i i i Sd/— Raiu