Disposed

Vinod Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2007WPC/75/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitioner sought writ against Revenue authorities regarding possession of his house and shop. Bench held that as an alternative efficacious remedy exists via civil suit, there are grounds for holding that it is not appropriate to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directs petitioner to approach civil court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; directions to learn civil court usually decided with aforesaid; no writ issued.

Vinod Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

•^i

C f- i^~Q

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

¶5

AT: BILASPUR

¶6

.r^ W.P. fO No. OF 2007

s-^

•-t'

PETITIONER:

^.Vinod Kumar Soni, aged 54 years, son of Shri Ramcharan Soni, resident of Sunaliya jewelers, power house road, Korba, tehsil & district - Korba (Chhattisgarh).

¶11

ofe a^"" \ryv ^^^~ ^e ^ ^ -'..^^^ ;•-„,:,-"'^'' '"^"^s^°"

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh, through the ^l-) Secretary, Department ofRevenue, Raipur, P-) District Collector, Korba (C. G.),

¶15

IVIunicipal Corporation, Korba, through the Commissioner (Municipal Corporation) Korba (C.G.), /4) Tehsildar, Tehsildar, Korbatehsil, Korba, Korba, (C.G.).

¶16

/4) Tehsildar, Tehsildar, Korbatehsil, Korba, Korba, (C.G.). ..o^ ^J?^ ^^ , ,^^{aTPETITIONUNDERARTICLE226/22^ OF} THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ^^. ^O' c^ ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTION.

¶17

~l——3-^x^Libmit as

¶18

XI-HC-22

¶19

3^ ^l^ld^, ^Tfl^Ko, ^<ni<r1^<

¶20

3<1^1 451<sr»

¶21

3<1^1 451<sr» • _ , ..^..4.^.V^..-...-^ ^o.~}l5 /o~~jj^QQ 1

¶22

^ll^c-ll $h^l

¶23

f^s

¶24

3^?T^T fN^^n^r 5h^[ch^TfN'	3Ti^T?^<TT^K^f?cT	Gbi<4fcn41ri ^i^QiT^:tel:^t'<Ri^i< ^"3^T3TI^T
	coM fil^ Shri^omnath Verma,' Shri SurrsitVerma, Panel Heard. Respondent No.4 has initN for removal of encroachment ciaimina the iand hls own has respondents not to dispossess l^ land In dispyte. Apparentiy It Is a tltle prove his tltie jn the competent remedy avallabie for restralnsrti Injunctlon bytiiing'a civil suit in nnatter relates to factuai alternative efficaclous remedyl Therefore, ! am not incllned Constitution of india to Interferel the Revenue Coyrt. HoweverJ learned civil Courtwiii dedde Wjth the aforesaid. direl Consequently, rVi.VV.,P.?Mo.115.; disposed of, Certified copyas per rules,	L( l

¶25

Raju

¶26

(lft^^Ra^l)

¶27

(,<^.(v 'A

Vinod Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Indarpal Jogi and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bhaiya Lal and Others Vs Ram Vrichha @ Shiva and Others

Smt.Shahnaj Akhtar Qureshi and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jitendra Singh Gareha Vs Raipur Development Authority and Ors.