'!^SSi. "'''» HjGHCpURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRIT PETITION N0,1033 OF 2006 PETITIONER Vs. RESPONDENTS 2. 3. 4. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, P.0. Kusmunda Colliery, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 495454 State of Chhattisgarh, TheSecretary, RevenueDepartment,Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Sub Divisional Off'icer, Katghora, District Kprba (Chhattisgarh) NaibTahsildar,Dipika,Tahsil Katghora, DistrietKorba (Chhattisgarh) Lakhan Lal, son of Shanker, Village Bhainsmakhar.TahsilKatghora, DistrictKorba (Ghhattisgarh) Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Present: ShriH.B.Agrawal.leamedSr.AdvocatewithMs, Shipra Biswas, learned counsel fpr the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned Dy. G.A. for the State: (ORAL ORDER) (Passedon 3ri Mareh, 2006) The grievance of the petitioner-company is that the subject land has been acquired by the petitioner-company for mining purpose and the 4 respondent who is a private person, withoutany interest or right in the subject property.has been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the subject land by the petitioner-company. So alleging, the petitioner has sought intervention ofthe court. This is notthe dispute which could be entertained under Article 226 of Constitution of India nor any writ or order could lie to 4 respondent, a private person, particularly, wheh it is not the ease of the petitioner that the 4 respondent is under any publie law I. ^ -2-- ^- obligation. The dispute brought before the Court issquarely falls within the domain of privatelaw review. The petitioner canworkout his legal remedies by way ofprivatetaw review remedies such as dectaration, injynction and damages by instituting a suit before thejurisdictional Civil Cou4. Reserving such liberty tothe petitioner, the petitionis dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice