The Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal filed by a non-party to revenue proceedings. The court held that such an individual has no right to directly challenge an order passed against strangers to the lis and must file a civil suit to declare title.
The appeal is dismissed; the appellant is at liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
.^l" 1 -3-0) '<br>s;
r
OGiiti!
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. <~^L- _/ 2011
/
-t
APPELLANT : Nemichand Jain, son of Late (Petitioner) Simrathmal Jain, aged about 82 resident of years, Vivekanand Ward, Raipur (C6) Vs
/ 1. Hiroo Pachkod, son of Late Rajaram Pachkod, aged about 68 years, resident of Tikrapara, Raipur, Tehsil and
RESPONDENT
r
resident
-^ Raipur,
.<•
^/^. District
Resoondent No. 1-A LR'S
District Raipur (C6)
l^*' /
,\v
\A
.^
l})
y
No.6 &7 are minors under the guardianship of Mother Smt.
All fh above legal heirs are resident ofTikrapara Raipur Tehsii and District Raipur (C.G.j
years.
1E. Smt. Jamuna, wife of Shri Sukhu, aged about 52 years. All through respondent No.l (respondents No.lA
r^i-
.^ e-^n
<br>
T
?E3t?i yigssson
IN THE HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. <T^>L/ 2011
APPELLANT (Petitioner)
Nemichand Jain, son of Late Simrathmal Jain, aged about 82 resident of years,
Vivekanand Ward, Raipur (C6)
Vs
RESPONbENT
r
resident of Tikrapara,
•^'
^^ ,/
^ Raipur, Tehsil and
<!'•
District Raipur (C6)
^/
lA.Rajendra, son of Late
^r
l^v/ Rajaram, aged about 45
FlV
^ years_
18. Smt. Sushila, widow of
Late Hiralal, aged about
80 years.
h
^^'
to 1E were not parties before the Board since their names been recorded along respondent No.l in the land records in compliance of the order of the Board of Revenue, therefore, they have been made to the parties present proceeding as a matter of
abundant caution)
Respondents No.lA to 1E are residents of Tikrapara, Raipur (C(5)
Lakhe Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil <& District Raipur (C&)
1
•s
3
(Respondents No.4 & 5 being the authorities have made parties to petition as the proper parties)
WRIT APPEAL UNbER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE CHHATTIS6ARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO &IVISION BENCH) ACT. 2007
B e i n3_aga£ley££L±iy_-ar-£l&c—da*^-.
1
;fe'' ^
<0)
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DB: HON'BLEMR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE 8s HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ.
Writ Anpeal No. 531 of 2011
Appellant Petitioner
Nemichand Jain
Versus
Respondents
Hiroo Pachkod and others
AND
Writ Auueal (PR) No. 8374 of2011
Appellant Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd., Petitioner
Versus
Respondents
Hiroo Pachkod and others
Present:
Shri Kshitij Sharma, counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.
Shri MPS Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri AN Bhakta, counsel for respondents 1, 1B, 1C, 1D 8s 1E in both the appeals.
Wnt Appeal under Section 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisgarh High Court (Anneal to Division Bench) Act,2006.
O R D ER
(Passed on 6ul July, 2012)
The following order of the Court was passed
by Abhay Manohar Saure, J.
Heard.
-?&,.€: 'WSS'SS^'i. fcs^s Ss z "W"JJ "•^«y
The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed a writ petition challenging one order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Board of Reveaue in one Revenue Revision No. R.N./14/R/B-121/90/2010 filed by respondent No.l against respondents 2 and 3, in reladon to the land bearing No. P.H.N.114 Khasra No. 213/1 area 0.845 situated in Tikrapara (Raipur). This writ petition was dismissed and hence, the writ appeal against the order of the writ Court filed by the writ petitioner.
sa. I Ki ? J i>fe;S;.E- ••.•rf<''' ^^^'y
Courts/Aufhorides/Tribunal to which he was not party to such proceedings, in which such order came to be passed then such orders would not bind him and nor such orders can be used against him by the persons, who were party to such proceedings.
A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.A. (PR) No.8374/2011.
Bini
Sd/Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge
Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge
^viSssssSsi'r 's^^s'"'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a non-party to a revenue proceeding can directly challenge the order passed in that proceeding via writ petition.
Whether revenue courts can decide issues relating to the title of parties to immovable property.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Nemichand Jain
Hiroo Pachkod
Abhay Manohar Sapre
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
