Disposed

Bodhiram and Another v. S.D.O.Civil,Bilaspur and Others

Chhattisgarh HC6 Apr 2010WP/6594/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by petitioners seeking mutation of their name in revenue records. The High Court, noting the matter remained pending for several years, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the petitioner's claim regarding mutation based on a sale deed within six months. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's claim of mutation on the basis of sale deed within six months of receipt of this order.

Bodhiram and Another Vs S.D.O.Civil,Bilaspur and Others — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

^A^ <rZ7

¶3

BEFORE THE HON'Bfe&Ii^&H COURT OF QElHXTTISGARH AT

¶4

W.E.N& ^^3^-

¶5

PETITIONERS

¶6

/"
1 ^•:;s>i^
'^ ..^.'^^
-i,S
r •^py''?" .•<
.^8P>
^fs^
»?,»" i""y'' , ,.•••"'
.A^""

¶7

•^'1. Bodhiram S/o tatjg shri Tokharam, aged^about 43 years

¶8

2, Hiralal S/o tate shri Tokharam, Aged abput 41 years

¶9

Botii Caste Dheemar, R/o Vill. Janji, Tehsil Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

V E RS US

¶11

RESPOND|NTS

¶12

^-1. Sub-divisional officer (Civil), Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

,Z. Additional Cbllector, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

3,. N.T.P.C. Plant, Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

/• 4. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Revenue Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, GE Road, Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

,5. Rajendra Bhosle, Patwari, Vill. Seepat, PH no. 27, Vill. Janji, Tehsil Seepat, Distt. BUaspur (C.G.)

¶17

PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶18

DETAILS OF PETITION: -

¶19

PARTICULARS OF PETITJQNER :- As above in title. '^ 2. PARTICULARS QFRESPONDENTS :- As aboys'in title. ORDERAGAINST WHJCH THE PETITION IS BEING MADE :- Case no. :- B -121/1050304 and 25 B^121/D304

Contd..2..

7^^w. ^w':

3^ •<<i<ii<n<i, ®Til-H4is,[i<ciiyy,<

¶24

^..?..A.Q.h.:^.£:...

¶25

	sn^rT°ra?(yit3'!«	i£()
311^1q>TK-u^ ^T 3?T^?)'»*!iqt	^TOR^felSIT^r	'WlfepfrT'Rmft4fttA'?^R5R ^'a.rRnaii^i
	SB: Hon'MeShriManindraMohanShr 06-04-2010 Shri PankajAgrawal, counsel fortl ShriSanjeevKumarAgrawal, Pan Shri Varunendra Mishra, counsel This pelition has been fited by t	ivastava.J. jiepetifoners. ^l Lawyer1brrespondents No.1,2, and 4. torrespondentNo.3.
y;,'^t T	19/07/20)4 (Annexure P-11) passed byttf revjstonfiled bythe petitionerhas been d The petitjoner filed an applteation revenue records on the strength ofsale c However, his application \ws rejected by 21/04/2003 (Annexure P-7). Aggrieved b before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bil (Annexure P-1), Sub-Uvisional OfBcer i Thereaflsr, the case of the petitioner re order was passed summoning recoids o) said order, the petittoner filed a revision who, vide order dated 19/07/2004 dismis! filed assailing aforesaidorder passed in n ground thatorderdafed 21/20004 amoui counsel for the petitioner further submi purchased the land in dispute tong back, the part of the revenue authorities jn not	Hefijrlftersubmitsthaton accountofnort acquiredbythe NTPC, compensation wa4 Submission of the tearned count decisjon iscausing severehardship. On the other hand, tearned couj ( orderpassed bytheAdditional Coltectors( W^, <[^r:^t'F?— (•:^. 'i i"f- -V2fli9— t,00,000.

¶26

=f g3

¶27

,,flfswi%,
^l,
:,,.<*h>
•<,-y/

¶28

XI-HC—78

¶29

'3"{ ^i-^Kiq, ^•ti)<-i<|(o, fs«11<-l^<

¶30

<)IHdTth*n^i

¶31

..l^..F>.....60..tj.J...6y TF^200

¶32

sn^i ^fsf; (ip^^iET)

¶33

sf^vqn R-ii* 'rT^TT STT^f sh*ii<?i	^RDWHfttl 3(1^1	qiT^[^l4)T( 'HR^ff TCf'fel^ <T^<-$I-(. ^T3ifiPT311^r
	Taking into consideration the opinion, interestofjusfice would be the case of the petitioner with regan pleadings and evidence as may be co matter has remainsd pending since respondentNo.1shall e)g}edB:iouslydi^ of6 months from the date ofreceipt this Court has not expressed any mutation basedon sale deed. Withtheaforesaid directton, thi se n a o	submisston made by the parties, in my ^ved in directing respondent No.1 to decide ll to his claim of mutation on the basis of lected duringthe course ofenquiry. Asthe
		Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge

¶34

Bodhiram and Another v. S.D.O.Civil,Bilaspur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodhiram and Another v. S.D.O.Civil,Bilaspur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Haseena Begum and Anr. Vs Sayyed Ashique Ali Khan and Anr.

R.R.Shankar Gupta Vs State and Ors.

Kailash Chandra Jain Vs State

Radheshyam Chandrakar Vs State

Poshan Lal Patel Vs State and Ors.