-^"-^a!^ 'i'.i B ^f v[f y ^ .0- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIL^PUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (Cl N0.820 of 2009 Ghana Ram Tiwari, aged about ^ yeai^; son of Late Shri Laxminarayan Tiwari, Retired Accountant, Janpad PaiCTchayat Pandariya, Resklent of Chainpur Road F^ndariya, Tahsil Pandariya, Dlstrlct Kabirdham (CG). Versus 1. State <rf Chhattisgarh, thrQUflh, the Secretaiy, General Administration Ctepartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantrataya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, Kawardha, Kabirdham (CG). District 3. The Sub Divisional QfRcer (Revenue), Pandariya, District Kabirdham (OG). 4. Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya, tbcough the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya, District tobirdham (CG). (Writ petitionunderArticle 226/227 ofttie Constitutton of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.K.C. Tiwary, Sr. Advocate wtth Shrt Shashi Bushan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for theState. ORALORDER (Passed on this 9m day of February, 20M) W i the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) By this petition, fte petitioner impugns the order 20-1-2009 ^nnexure-P/l) (a^ed by ttifi Add^rralJCQlleclor, l^biiidham, in revenue case No.(»-B-121 year 20)8-09 (Ghana Ram vs. ChW Execufive Officer, Janpad Pancfoayat Pandanja & An^w), whereby the Additional Collector held that the petjtioner/appellant has failed to prove his case, thus the appeal filed by the petittoner was dismissed. •^ '"''^y '2/' <2^ ^ 3) Shri Tiwary, leamed senior counsel appearing dn tehalf of ttie petffioner, submits that the property in dispute was never thft proparty of Janpad Panchayat and the same was afeacff land, b^ring Jthasiy No.726/1^. The petitioner has constructe((the house 35 years ago and has been continuously staying in the sakl house. There is no ownership of Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya on the saidland. The peBtioner has been regularty paying the taxes, electricity &, water charges ete. L^imed coynsel further submits that the authorities have no competence fc> j^ue notice under Section 4 (1) of the Chhattisgafh Lok Parisar (BedakhalR Adhini^m, 1974 (for short "fte Adftfrayam, 1974"), even if it is a property (rf Janpad Pancha^it. 4) The question raised hereto is not retovant in (he facts of the present case, as according to the petitioner ttie property io qu^tion is not Uie property of Janpad Panchayat, but ft is tto iwoperty ovwied t^ the petitioner. The question asto whether competent authority has power to pass ewcUon order in regard to Uie property of Janpad Panchaysrt is not invoh/ed herein. Thus, it appears that fte tfsputo between Janpad Panchayat and the petitioner involves jdisputed quesUon offactsand ttie same cannot be decided by the High Court in wr«tjurisdiction. 5) In view of the foregoing, the p^ition isdlsmigsed, Howver, the petittoner is at liberty to approach the Chril Court for redressal <rf his griewinces, if so advised. In the event, Uie pstitioner gpproaches the competent jurisdictional CivH Court; he shall not te dispo^^sed ftom the property in dispute for a period of one month from the date ofthis order. 6) Consequently, t.A.No.1 stands disposed of. _ Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge