ARH v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District; Raipur (C.6.). The Chhattisgarh Revenue Board, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur, Distn'ct : Raipur (C.6.). K .3: The Collector, Mahasamund, District : 4:
z< Mahasamund (C.G.). The Additional Collector, Mahasamund, pistn'ct: Mahasamund (C.6.). The Sub Divisional Officer, Saraipali, Oistrict: Mahasamund (C.6.). The Naib Tahsildar, Saraipali, District : Mahasamund (C.6.). Ravindra Kumar S/o. Dau Kumar 6ada, aged about : 70 years, R/o. Village : Chattigirola, Revenue Circle : Khamharpaii, Tahsil : Saraipali, District : Mahasamund (C.6.). (APPLICANT) » fc ^ WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTCCLE 227 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INDIA . '>.* (A-)
Operative part
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION f227) N0.47 OF 2012 PETITIONER/ NON-APPLICANT N0.2 Raghu Lal Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AJit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate for the respondent No.7. ORDER fOPEN COURT) (Passed on this 3rd day of April, 2013) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1) Grievance of the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue by order dated 4-8-2010 has wrongly directed the Nayab Tahsildar to the effect the land in question be mutated in the name of the respondent No.7. The ancestors of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.7 were not holding the land as Kotwari land before 1950 and, as such,. direction on the ground that whosoever was working as Kotwar be granted the Kotwari land, is vitiated. Thus, the Nayab Tahsildar may be directed' to reconsider the case of both the parties in the light of order dated 30-10-2001 passed by this Court in Chhabil Das & Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (WPNo.2632 of 2000), on merit and pass fresh order. 2) On the other hand, learned counsel'for the respondent No.7 submits . that in fact the land was recorded in the name of ancestors of the respondent No.7. '/^ ?>4&. 3) Be that as it may, the finding in respect of holding of land by the forefathers of the respondent No.7 is not properly established after examination. Thus, the order impugned is modified to the extent that the Nayab Tahsildar is directed to reconsider the case of both the parties on merit after affording proper opportunity of hearing in the light of decision of this Court rendered in Chhabil Das (supra). 4) In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. 1 SA'- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^ ?.( ^&
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.