PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 11 -7 -2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N/14/R/A -68/1175/ 06, whereby the Board of revenue dismissed the revision and upheld the order dated 3 -8 -2006 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, the order dated 19 -11 -2004 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhatapara as well as the order dated 7 -6 -2004 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Bhatapara.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 29 -8 -1992 the brother of the petitioner namely; Anil Kumar was granted lease in respect of Khasra No. 46971, area 0.006 hectares on which the petitioner constructed the house over an area about 0.004 hectare. The despondent No. 6 herein made a complaint on 13 -7 -2004 (Annexure P/2) against the petitioner in the court of Tahsildar stating that the petitioner has encroached over an area of 0.004 hectares, out of the total area 34.235 hectare, Khasra No. 469/1 which was recorded in the revenue record as Government grass land. On the basis of the complaint made by the respondent No. 6, Naib Tahsildar registered the case being Revenue Case No. 9A/68/2003 -04 and issued a show cause notice (Annexure P/3) to the petitioner. The petitioner replied the show cause notice stating that the disputed land was recorded in the name of his brother Anil Kumar and the lease was granted in respect of the same land. It was further mentioned in the application that the petitioner has not constructed any structure on the Government land. Except on the land recorded in the name of his brother. On 4 -6 -2004, the respondent No. 6 appeared before the Court of Naib Tahsildar and submitted his report. By order dated 7 -6 -2004 (Annexure P/5), the Naib Tahsildar declared the petitioner as encroacher of the Government land and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/ - and directed the petitioner to remove the construction work from the disputed land.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhatapara, Raipur, The Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner was encroacher on the Government land and maintained the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, which was also dismissed on the same ground. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue.