IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2S)f /2005 PETITIONERS ^ ./<^/" <^€7" \y RESPONDENTS 1. Gurudayal Singh, S/o Buta Singh, 2. Avtar Singh, S/o Gurudayal Singh, , 3. Mukhtayar Singh, S/o Gurudayal Singh, 4. Rajbahadur, S/o Ramchandra, 5. Baijnath, S/o Radheshyam, ^ 6. Prithvipal, S/o Gurudayal Singh, .7. Vinod Kumar, S/o Shyamshankar, f-8. Sameer Kumar, S/o Shambhoo Sharan, . 9. Sanjay S/o Nadam Petitioner Nos. 1,2, 3, 6, 8 &9 are R/o Bishrampur, petitioner nos. 4 & 7 are R/o Ambikapur and petitioner no. 5 is R/o Village Satpata, all of District Surguja -VERSUS- :State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Surguja (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION. XI-HC-78 \jw| ^qi<ilrtq, tP^-I^Ko, RCOW^ L^^ TFfC^T^TT^ ^. W1,200 3TT^?T q^P (4c|Ij6|<£{) 3Ty^$T^rR^ WIT3il^$T^^icp '\b g^TrsR^rft?r OT^^T 22.8,2005 Shri Rajeev Shrivast^ Shri Sandeep Dubey,| By this writ petition| 26.3.2005 passed by thc| Appeal No.l21/A-21/20(l in Case No.55/A-21/200 <pi<iIo<Flvi ^i4ioT^'(^<-<£lxRi^-$i<< ^3lRl<l3TT^^T iva, counsel for the petitioners. Govt. Advocate for the State. the petitioners liave questioned the legality, propriety a^Lid correctness of order dated Boarcl of Revenue in Reveuue 2-03, order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the Coinniissio|ner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur D-01 and also the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by th^ Collector, Sarguja (Ambikapur) in Revenue Case No.51|-A/21/1999-2000 wh.ereby the Collector held that the 4ransfer madc by the petitioner No.l in favour of petitiotier Nos,2 to 9 of tlie disputed reveniie land was illegal b Section 165(7) (b) of the and the same was affirmejd by the Cominissioner & Board of Revenue by the above o\ I have heard leaniec|. counsel for tlie petitioner Shri Shrivastava & learned Go^ The main argiiment Courts while passing the executive order datecl 26 land allottees. He also a sing contrary to the provisions of P.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ders. |ernment Advocate Shri Dul^ey, |of counsel for the petitioners is that neither of the revenile authorities of the above tliree impugned orders considered the 7.1984 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Bhuniiswami rights w^re conferred on the Government |'gued that in this casc revenue authorities had invoked t|ie provisions of Section 165 (7) 1 (b) of C.-G. Land Revenue pode while declaring the transfer XI-HC-78 TF[^T^HT^ \dwj '-qi<llc><l, tP-alfl<l<<, ROW^ •••'••.•••••DB«BB«rf'B|i«-B^BaaBn««Ba»BBBB^200 3TT^?T q^P (<??tg^E?) 3TT^^Tq5TR^i<b WIT31T^^Tri>+li<b ^. ^€)^\^^ly / ^ ?^cTTW^rf^T 3I1^$T ^ 2- of land illegal, whereas, iuserted on 28.10.1992 vj and the laud in question petitioner No.l in favouil 16.3.1992 & 30.7.1992. TI^ not considered bv tlie r^ argued that the raatter isia\ Sarguja (Ambikapur) to p^ the iniport & effect of the (Aunexure P-5) and also in was transferred by the p^ the provision of Section 3 Code, to which learned Go1 / respondentsShriSandee Accordingly, the ord( the matter is remanded (Ambikapiir) to pass the the executive order dated provision of Section 165(7 Code, 1959 as thc same w land by petitioner No.l, With the direction disposed of. Consequently, M.(^ No.7128/05 also stand di; rules. <pi<4[o<Tl^i +ii+ioT^ffe^l xRi^i^ ^3tRl+t3n^^T the above said provision was .de Amendment No.17 of 1992 was already transferrecl by the of petitioiier Nos,2 to 9 on erefore, the above aspects were :venue authorities, He further Y be sent back to the Collector, ss order afresh after examining 'xecutive order dated 26.7.1984 the light that land in question titioner before the insertion of 65(7)(b) of C.G. Land Revenue ^eminent Advocatc for the State 3 Dubey has no objection. :rs impugned are quashed and 3ack to the Cbllector, Sarguja ^rders afresh after considering 26.7.1984 (Annexure P-5) and )(b) of the C.G, Land Revenue EIS inserted after the transfer of aforesaid, the petitiou stands ^.)P. No.3204/05 & I.A. ^posed of, Certified copy as per Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^