^"i. 0 .<3- j Q<^L S.B. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. 236^ / 2004 PETITIONER A\!;-^ ^s^" ^^•y^ ..- '^RESPONDENTS ^y Sheetal Das Panika, S/o Sliri Dayadas Panika, Aged about f3 '2-, years , R/o Village - Soniyadih, Tehsil - Bilaigarh, District- Raipur, C.G. VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh through the Collector, District Raipur, Raipur, C.G. r? 2. Pardeshiram S/o Shri Firtu Ram Mehar R/o Village - Soniyadih, Tehsil - Bilaigarh, District- Raipur, C.G. ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI AND ANY OTHER WRITS, DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS. The petitioner named above begs to submit as under :- |S- XI-HC-78 3TT^T^Tf^ri^ cww^T^Trt^ +11*1^11 $b+1(cti 3:^';3n^T^PT, '©Tn'H'Ko,(cfdlti^< , [^.P.roo-^i^/^3^^ ^ 200 3TT^T tRW ('{cji^sj^r) ?;RTT^K ^Tf^cT 3TT^T 09.10.2006 Shri. Sa^endra Sahu. c Shri Satish Giipta, D respondent no. 1, on advance At the verv out set subinits that he is not pre< application for aiiiendmeiit. admission. AccorduiRlv, I.A,No,75 pressed. Arguments on admissi^ Order dictated as follo^ Syail Kumar sisiha, J Bv wav of this writ petj Constitutiou of India, the pej order dated 19.7.2004, pass^ Appeal N0.472/A-56/ 2002-^j while rejectuig tlie appeal order ofthe vSub-Divisional Appesd No.77/A-56/2001-2q The brief facts are tlt previously workuig as Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipiir (C.G|1 the viUagers, he was removek Talisildar. It is stated tiiat CM^I<n41Ti ^i^^T^'*teI<ft<f^i^i< ^- 3rf^T3TT^T |ounsel for the petitioner, n3ut\7 Govt. Advocate for the State/ ICODY. learaed counsel for the uetitioner ssing I.A.No.7530/2004, which is an He pravs for heariB.g this inatter on 30/2004 staiids disniissed, as not )n heard. 7S: .. ORDER OfltAL .10.2006) Ition med uiider Article 226/227 oftlie ^itioner has prayed for quashiag of the ^d bv the Board of Revenue in Revenue S003. Bv the said order, the Board fliled bv tliis Detitioner, confiiTaed the Officer passed on 29.6.2002 iu Revenue |02. lat the respondent no.2 hercm, was of the village Soniyadih, Tehsil I. On some complaiiits berag inade by fel frora the said uost bv the concenied lui the ineaiiwhile, the i^etitioiier was Kotlvar XI-HC-78 ^TT^T^T^Jch cTSTTW^Tsh^ich ^Nl- !—-,;. yy/fP )^ ^^ <r +11HCT1 Sh+llttl S^^ti^Krt^, ^^^(0, l®«rtl<l^< ^:?\^°:^1>^J "^. 2^- f ^: 200^ 311^1 M5|th (^cit^q^) 5^TT^K^cf3^FT -~i\ appouited as aa ad-hoc Kot\v^ filed ai3peal before tlie Sub allowed. After aUowiag the ^ tlie petitioner chaUeiiRed tU Revenue aiid the said Board. dismissed the said ai3Deal file^ order i3assed bv the Siib- Divl by the Board whUe passin^ impiiRned order Uiat ia f] respondent no.2, no show ca^ on these counts, the order ofl also been observed bv tlie Bo^ fhis case th.at resDondent i coiiditions. The Boai'd has d detalled enquir}7 was requu respondent no.2. There appears to be uo Board of Revenue ia its seco: the order of settuig aside tli€ Sub-Divisional Officer. This petition has no me: In view of the above, M reUef mid I.A.Nos.5337/2004 I.A.No.9226/2006 for out of disposed of. Gbl^f^l41rl HW<^\ ^ fe^ <Rl<-<-K ^3T^T3TT^T r ofthe villase. The resDondent no.2 Divisional Qfficer. The appeal was ppeal by tlie Sub-Divisional Officer, e said order before fhe Board of iiltiinatelv after hearins the uarties 1 bv tlie petitioner aad confirmed the isional Officer. It has been observed the order 111 paragraph 6 of tlie ic present case, before removiiig ise notice etc., was siven to him aiid removal was held to be illegal, It has rd tliat it has uot been estabUshed in. LO. 2 has siven his sei-vice laiid on lease/sub-lease to the other ^ersons, thereby violatuig his seivice earlv obser^ecl that on these facts, a ed to be done before reinoval of iILegalin7 in tlie order nassed bv the ,id appellate Jzirisdictiou, coufirmuig removal of resi3ondent no.2 bv the tits aiid the same is dismissed. W,P. 2102/2004 for grant ofmterim & 9593/04 for urgent heariiig and tuni Ustuig of the case, all stsiid Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ~^ Judge