Dismissed

Vidhyadhar Das Mahant v. Mr. Atul Shethe

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2016CONT/320/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a contempt petition against a Tahsildar who failed to conduct a detailed enquiry into disputed land status. The court found the act not to be willful disobedience, referring petitioners to the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code for remedies. A liberty was reserved.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; liberty reserved to challenge the Tahsildar's order via appeal under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

Vidhyadhar Das Mahant Vs Mr. Atul Shethe — Chhattisgarh HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CONT No. 320 of 2016

¶5

Vidhyadhar Das Mahant S/o Late Shri Bhalidhar Das, Aged About 46 Years R/o Gram Basantpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

¶6

Punamdas Mahant, S/o Late Shri Bhalidhar Das, Aged About 42 Years R/o Gram Basantpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

¶7

Panchram Mahant, S/o Late Shri Bhalidhar Das, Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Basantpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

¶8

Bundelabai Mahant W/o Late Shri Bhalidhar Das, Aged About 62 Years R/o Gram Basantpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Mr. Atul Shethe Aged About 50 Years At The Time Of Order Was Posted As Tahsildar Raigarh, (Presently Posted As S. D. M. Laillunga), In The Office Of The S.D.M. Laillunga, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

¶12

Mr. Shivnandan Sahu, Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Tahasildar Raigarh, The Office Of The Tahsil Office Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

¶13

Mr. Alarmel Mangaee Di Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Collector, Raigarh, In The Office Of The Collector Office Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001.......(Respondents)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate.

¶16

S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

01/08/2016

Heard on admission.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though there was an order passed by this Court on 24.01.2013 for making fact finding

¶21

-2-

¶22

enquiry as to whether the land in dispute is service land or Maphi land, no enquiry was made, the matter was kept pending and thereafter when some other person moved application claiming the land to be service land, in a slipshod enquiry, without detailed enquiry as directed by this Court, it has been recorded by the Tahsildar that the land is a service land and not Maphi land.

¶23

Irrespective of the merits of the claim of the petitioners, I find that it was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that an order has been passed earlier by this Court. The Tahsildar has recorded a finding based on certain materials that the land in dispute is a service land and not Maphi land.

¶24

Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of willful disobedience. I am not inclined to initiate contempt proceeding and the contempt petition is therefore dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, his remedy lies in challenging order passed by Tahsildar by way of appeal or such other remedy as may be available to him under the provision of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

¶25

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge

¶26

Rekha

Vidhyadhar Das Mahant v. Mr. Atul Shethe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhyadhar Das Mahant v. Mr. Atul Shethe

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

Purushottam Prasad Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Parikshit Meher Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kuldeep Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

B.P.Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Raja Babu Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lochan Rathia Vs State Of Chhattisgarh