R1 THE EIGE CQWR'E‘ f}? SEgkiTTEEGAQE ii? EELgSPiTP WPNa [4’IO mam EDEE‘IE‘KEgER : $aii$h Chamh‘aa Jgaii, Si <3 Sm'i Sumer Chand Jain. Aged abzmt 44 yeam, Rf a Raigmr Nakay Bilaac-ur {9%,}. ‘Veigag — RESPGElgiEZ‘ITS : 3, Eamii ai‘ Reveumak CEmitiagxgh, Thraugh ita Memhéf badge? Bilasyur (C.G.). } L2, 31m Eivkienai Q$cgr (R93; Jule}, Bi'laapur [C G} Tahm’kiaig Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. Shri Shaukat AH, S; a Shri £iwaji Ehai: Rga I§1ap£ganjr Bilag ur ((243,). ‘ EE’EK’E‘EQE‘ §§EEE §§T§§LE 22$ if $F TEE §QE§$TET§§E§E EEEIé. §$E E$§¥A§EGE GE? A $VI’E&ELE '%¥§.IT QEEER QR 3EEE§TI€3E§ 1W} EEQ agiigl‘IQE 11$ QEE gigi‘l‘i‘EE! N ‘3 E \ XLHC~Z2 28.06.2004 Shri Rajeev Shrivast ‘ a, counsel for the petitioners. . Govt. Adv. for Itspoudcnt Shri SatiSh Gupta, D No.1 to 31 Shri M.D. Shanna, c unsel for respondent No.4. This order shall gove n the &isp(>$a1 of the petitions namelv Writ Petition 0.1409/2004 between Smt. Rajeshwari Chaturvedi ék nether Vs. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh 8t. miners, Writ Petition N.u.14-10/20{34 between Satish Chand ‘aiyz. Vs, Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh &. others, Writ petition No.1412/2004 between Alok Kumar Vs. Qaard of Revenue Chhattistgarh &s others, Writ petition No.14lll2004 between Smt. Veena Tiwari & another Vs Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh &, others anti Writ Petition No.1545/2004 between Smt. Jyoti Dixit $5 others Vs. Board of Revenue, Chhatti's-garh 86 others, iiince all these writ petitions relate to the same issue and impugn the order-date. 23.03.2004 passed by the Board of Revenu Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur therefore, they are being dispose of by this common order. In all these writ petitions return has already been filed on behalf of respondent No.4. The circumstanoes in ading to fih’ng of all these Writ petitions are that respondent No.4 herein moved an aPPlication before the Teh sildar, BiiaspurA under Sectioo XI—HC—22 Wm 250 of the Land Revenut: C that he is Bhuswami 01' No,724/ 1 araa 0.24 acrcs s Nagar) and the possession the said land aré unauthori‘ of the same may be givcni considering the arguments { 09.07.20a1 rejccted the ay appiiéation is not maintain Code. Being aggriaved by ode, 1954 requesting therein the land bearing Khasra Ltuazcd at Vill¢gc Tifra (Bharti of the petitioners herein over Zed, therefore, the possession ta him. The Tehsildar after 5f the parties vide order—dated plieation hy holding that the able under Section 25C of the the nrder of the Tehsildar, respondent No.4 herein pneferred an appeal before the spur who also after hearing e appeal vide order dated 1n order to seek relief under 1 Sub Divisional Officer, Bil the parties dismissed t 09.03.2003 and held that Section 250 of the Code applicant who is seeking re the land in dispute, the del estab'lished undisputedly on which date the applica t was dispossessed from the ‘ land in dispute and since t e applicant could not be able to prove all these facts, th reiore, the applicant was not entitled for any relief and ppeal was dismissed, Again aggrieved by the order of S b Divisional Officer, Biiaspur respondent No.4 had pref rred 'a second appeal before the Board of Revenue Chha tisgarh, Bilaspur, which was registered as Revenue App cal No.537/A-7Gf2002<2093.> x it is necessary that the lief must be the Bhuswami of narcation of the land must be nd it shali also be clear‘that mwmm @ WT W 200 W mmmm WW‘i@W % 31m 311%?! a i/ mm The learned Board o'f Rev nue after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Tehsildat w' h a direction to conduct an enquiry on the applicatio of respondent No.4 herein’and he should be granted reli I have heard the lea Learned counsel for learned Board of Revenue given a direction to t application filed by respo prayed in that application e granted to respondent No.4. Counsel further submits learned Board of Revenue 1 The Board of Revenue was direction while remanding provisions contained in S1. On‘ the other hand l: No.4 tried to support the l Having heard the 1e and having regard to the 1 ease, I am of the opinion of the learned Board oi 1 grant relief as prayed in instead thereof the learned Revenue Board ought to have directed the Tehsildar tc XI-HC-22 f as prayed in the application. ed counsel for the parties, he petitioners argued that the hilt: remanding the case back e Teheildar to act on the dent No.4 herein and relief as that this direction of the s patently illegal and perverse. not authorized to give such a the case back contrary to the *ction 44 of the Code. :arned counsel for respondent )rder of the Revenue Board. arned counsel for the partia 'acts and circumstances of t} that the direction] observatic Qevenue to the extent that to the application is not correct conduct an enquiry on the application of respondent No.4 herein in accordance with “J (txhuKIN We “J XI-HC—ZZ m maumexkk/enm mm W 200 ma man mm misfiéa mmmm WWW wm $311iaq311é¥1 V /L\*’ the law and to pass appropriate order after conducting enquiry in accordance with law. Thcrcfore, in View o ‘ thc above all the above writ petitions are allowed an the order damd 23.03.2004. passed by the Board of Re e’nue is modified to the extent that the Tehsildar to onduct an enquiry on the application of responden No.4 and pass appropriate . order in accordance with he law. At the time of giassin of the order the Tchsildar will be required to decide follo ing points alsow e Whether on th, date of application respondent No.4 herein was the Bhuswami of the land for which he had filed the apjplication and the date when he was dispossessed from the said land” With the aforesaid directions and observations r; these petitions are disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.