/m RS Hi$n LGUFU“ UF (LnrlA TbuiiRr! AT BlLAaPUR Writ iietmon {C} No 293$ of 2Q’iti. Jethu Slo $adhu Satnami Aged about 50 years, R/c. Manikchcuri, Tahsii Kawardha, District Kabird'nam (C.G.) g-fNgtitioner Vs. Respondents 1. Board of Revenue Circuit Court Raipur; District Raépur (£16.) The (:oliectcr Kabirdham Eistrict Kabirdham (Cu) N \n Present: 3m NK. Chattergee, counsei for the petitioner. $hri Sumeeh gage}, ac‘v't. Advecate fer reepcndent Ne.2/Stete. Singie Benc hen’bie Tshré iinirenéra iviishr ; h: a g (39.06.2e1a) i. The inetanbpeiition is directed against the order ciateci 21.i38.2U(}9 V “by V i passed by Beard of Revenue (Annexure—P!i)’rri which the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of Cioiiector, Kabird‘nam rejecting his revision appiication against the order of Nair) iahsiidar passed under $ection 44o or’ Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, wag (hereinafter ‘”i"he f3ode‘) has been turther dismissed. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that the Naib Tahsiio‘ar has passed an order ot eviction from 4 acres of government iahd under Section 248 ot‘ the Code on the ground that he is an encroacher. The above order has been subsequentiy confirmed by the Coiiector and Board of Revenue and his revisron petitions have been dismissed. However, the forums beiovv have not considered his acpiication for settiement ot the above iand and the same has not been decided by the competent authority. Ix ’r/ ‘im i-‘rom perusai ot the impugned order as aiso order of Cotiector {Annexure—P/2} it is evident that eviction proceedings were initiated from Ih c: mment land on tne baSIs or tne renort or Fatwari bv the Naib ‘i'ahsilu‘ar and order of eviction under Section 248 was passed after affording opportunity of 'neanng to the petitioner. The order passed by the Nai‘o ’i‘a‘nsiidar has been subsequentiy confirmed by both the revisiona! Courts. The petitioner has not ttted any documents L to demonstrate that he has any right or titie to remain in possession of the government tand and the same has not been settied in favour of the, petitioner. Both the torumsbeiow have categorica‘iiy observed that no documents have been fired by the petitioner retating to the settiement ot disputed iand in favour of him or proceeoings pending before any fOrum. . in view of the above findings of both the forums below, i am of the opinion that there is no iiiegaiity infirmity or iurisdictional error committed by the Courts befow warranting interference in exercise of its iurisdiction under Artioie 222? of the Constitution of India. The petition without any substance deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingiy dismissed at the admission stage ttseif. X Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Binf