JUDGMENT

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. - This petition has been brought challenging the order dated 18.01.2018, passed by the Board of Revenue (C.G.), Bilaspur in Case No. R.N./02/R/A-70/134/2017, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of the suit land with constructed house bearing Nazul Plot No.4, Plot No.68/3 area 3000 sq.ft.. The respondent No.1 is making a claim that she has purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 15.10.2004 and having mutation in her favour, filed an application under Section 250 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short the Code, 1959) before the Tahsildar, Bilaspur on 04.07.2015 praying for restoration of possession. The essential requirement for making such claim were missing, as there was no mention regarding the date of dispossession of the respondent No.1. Further the proceeding under Section 250 of C.G. Land Revenue Code was not at all maintainable because the disputed property is property situated in urban area, therefore, the disputed property is within the urban area as defined under Section 2 (z-4) of the Code, 1959 and any matter of dispossession of such land is not governed by the provisions under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, therefore, the proceeding was not at all maintainable before the Tahsildar.

3. It is further submitted that, the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 09.05.2016 for restoration of possession to respondent No.1 of the suit property was challenged before the S.D.O., Bilaspur in appeal and the same was dismissed on 22.08.2016. The order of the S.D.O. was further challenged in appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur and the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2017, against which the revision preferred before the Board of Revenue has also been dismissed by the impugned order. It is submitted that the orders are against the provisions of law, therefore, not-sustainable. Hence relief be granted to the petitioners.

4. Counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the petition and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are encroacher of the disputed land. The respondent No.1 is titled holder of the property by virtue of sale deed dated 15.10.2004. An application was filed for demarcation on 09.10.2014 and when demarcation was made it was found that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are in illegal possession of the disputed land. The application under Section 250 of the Code has been filed within two years from the knowledge of such illegal possession and the date of such knowledge is 14.10.2014. The question of maintainability was raised before the Revenue Board and same has been very clearly decided vide order dated 04.10.2015 that portion of land on which Kachha house is constructed is not within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts, however, open land is governed by the provision of Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code and on that basis order can be passed.

5. It is further submitted that principle of res-judicata is applicable in the different stages of the same proceeding as it has been held by the Supreme Court in case of Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar & Anr., (2005) AIR SC 626 . Relying on the judgment of M.P. High Court in Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal Vs. Chetu Batt, (1976) AIR M.P. 160 , it is submitted that the M.P. High Court has held that the remedy provided in Section 250 of the Code can be resorted to by Bhumiswami in case of his illegal dispossession. It is further submitted that in case of Murlidhar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., (2013) 3 MPLJ 184 , it is very clearly held that limitation as required under Section 250 (1-a) (b) starts from the date when it is found that when the possession is found to be unauthorized. Therefore, the application under Section 250 of the Code filed by respondent No.1 was within time. In case of Vaishnav Sahayakt Trust Vs. State of