^ IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR writpetitionNo./ZC^'3) /2001 Petitioner Respondant : Mahettar S/o Mahesh Ram Satnaim (^ofcu^^ R/o- Bhadara, Tah- Sarangarh Distt - Raigarh (C.G.) YER8US * State ofChhattisgarh Through- Secretary Revenue Department D.K. Bhawan Raipur. 2. Additional CollecterRaigarh Distt Raigarh 3. Subdivision ofBcer. (Revenue Department) SiW ^ugw^i^^ 4. Tahsildar, Sarangarh Distt- Raigarh. 3't) ~( ^Y 5. Visikram S/o Ghasiram Satnami J^o Bhadara, Tah-Sarangarh, Distt- Raigarh. d^i<e^w^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA s-& fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER WritPetitionNo. 2619/2001 Mahettar Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer forthe State. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OF THE CONSTmjTIONOF INDIA ORAL ORDER (25.09.2010) Heard. (2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the legality and validity ofthe order passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh on 7/11/2001 (Annexure P-8) setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Sarangarh oa 24/01/2001 and maintaming the order passed by Tahsildar, Sarangarh on 8/05/2000. Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that fhe iinpugned order has been passed on incorrect appreciation and perception of facts of the case v> • and caimot be sustained in law. (3) On perosal ofthe order, Annexure P-8, it would appear that tfie dispute relates to mutation of the name of the parties on the subject land. From the contente ofthe order, it would appear that both fhe parties have joined issue which is in the realm of a dispute with --I^respect to title as also their entitlement to possess Ae land. l;si;SH»-i. . l I'^;?J^ ;:•.'' ;v ^ (4) It is trite law that in proceeding under article 226/227 of the Constitution oflndia, the writ court is not authorized to dwelve upon the dispute relating to title of one or other party on the land in dispute. ' (5) Thus, the instant petition is bereft ofany substance, it deserves to be and is dismissed. (6) If the petitioner so desires, he may prefer a duly consitituted civil suit for establishing his right over the land. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge