3§§§£LE 3E§§€3 4§‘B) ‘¢§)I A K: a x: IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. “¥ 1M é OF 2010 PETITIONERS ( Nam e - aPIJh‘Qu/Lk) W /’2.l Ramprasad S/o Late Sambalpuriya, aged about 44 years, . Punilal S/o Late Sambalpuriya, aged about 40 years, .Gulabram S/o Late Sambalpuriya, aged about 35 years, . Nanki Bai Widow of Late Sambalpuriya, aged about 75 years All are resident of Madhub‘anpara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh C.G. o 1’ 1. Sukh-lal S/o Late Sambalpuriya, aged about 48 years, VERSUS , RESPONDENTS /' l. Naresh Kumar S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Gupta ,2. Smt. Vipula Gupta Widow of Late /‘,Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Both are resident of Village Dhangardipa, Tahsil and District Raigarh C.G. MIL" I’W/iqm j W / 3. The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, at Bilaspur, through the Secretary, / W Bilaspur C.G. / L" gait Rdiwrf', o¥ Aisff. cry HaikxmcCQQQ thy mya «um col/wax WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . HIGH COURT OF CHI—IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) N0. 7246/2010 PETITIONERS : Sukhlal and others Versus RESPONDENTS : Naresh Kumar and othels Appearance: Shn' Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDEK (13.12.2010) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are in possession of land from the time oftheir forefathers, and this fact is established by the report filed along with this writ petition at page l7; hence their name should have been recorded in the revenue records. (2) From the documents filed and averments made in the writ / petition, it would appear that the petitioners had earlier preferred a civil suit for declaration of their title on the basis of prescription by adverse possession. The said'suit bearing Civil Suit No. 314-A/l986 was initially decreed ex-parte, but after the eX—parte order was set aside, the suit was later on dismissed’for want of prosecution. //Ti (3) In the meawhile, the subordinate revenue court passed an order o Tin favour of the petitioners for recording their name in the revenue \ re ~ %’ records which has been set aside by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 9/09/2010 which is impugned in this writ petition. (4) Admittediy, there is no document of title in favour of the petitioners. They are claiming title on the basis of their long possession which according to them, have been perfected by adverse possession. The question regarding prescription of title is essentially a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (5) The petitioners, ifthey are so advised and iftheir right to file. a civil suit still survives inspite of dismissal of their earlier suit for want of prosecution, may agitate their grievance in accordance with law before the jurisdictional civil court, wherein all the parties would be entitled to‘ plead all factual and legal aspects including maintainability of the said suit. (6) With this observation, the instant petition is dismissed. W ,ar/ Sdl- /‘;n.p%//j Prashant Kumar Mishra e Judge