l^^'^^s %-•? SINGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. ^\ OF 2011 PETITIONER Jagdish Patel S/o Lakhan Lal, aged about 22 years, R/o House No. 62, Dadarkhurd, Tahsil- Korba, District Korba (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS MON - A<>PLT.d»~tT ^ i^J ^ ^/ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, 'D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.j. 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, District Korba (C.G.) )V •>?" p/ .M [w . . •€^ / RevisoNefc. Q 5. Superintendents, Land Serial No.l, Korba (C.G.). Record, -^ 1) 2) 3) Suraan Kalyan Singh S/o Pataitram, aged about ^)0 years, R/o village Patadheel,'1 Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.). 7. Board of Revenue, through Member, Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As given above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:- As given above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS BEING MADE:- /" Impugned order dated - Ahnexure 07.09.2009 p/1 f! ^•':'A '"<t?^ s< 'm 'sk ^v 3'1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BtLASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. W.P. (2271 No. 931 of 2011 PETITIONER Jagdish Patet. Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh and others. Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivadi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (17/02/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. ' Heard. (2) Petitioner Jagdish Patel has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 07"' September, 2009 (Annexure P/1), by which revision preferred by respondent No.6 Suman Kalyan Singh S/o Pataitram has been altowed and the subject land bearing Khasra No.540, 541 and 562 area 4.92 acres, situated at village Dadarkhurd, Tahsil and District Korba has been directed to be entered in the name of said respondent No.6. (3) Admittedly, petitioner was not a party in the proceeding before the Board of Revenue or for that matter before the subordinate revenue Courte. (4) Learned counsel for the pefltioner would submit that since the subject land was entered as a Charagah land and all the villagers required the said piece of land, therefore the petitioner is entitted to file this petition. (5) This Court is not satisfied with the explanation inasmuch as in the order passed by the Board of Revenue it is mentioned ttiat'the land eartier belong to forefather of respondent No.6. tn the representation sttbmitted by the villagers (Annexure P/5) it is also menUoned ttiat forefather of respondent No.6 were in possession of land and at present < •X- y South Eastem Coalfields Limited is dumping soil on the subject land. Dumping of soil on Charagah land is also illegal and it goes to demonstrate that, in any case, the subject land is not used by the villagers. (6) Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed as the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order. The petitioner, if he so. desires, may bring it to the notice of concemed Collector wjth a prayer that the matter requires to be agitated at the instance of State . .bu-'^ Government and on such representation js i rrfadeT the concemed Collector shall take decision in this regard and if found appropriate, may take steps to prefer duly constituted writ petition before this Court. (7) With this observation, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge