Dismissed

Tarachand v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Nov 2017WPC/3086/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered a writ petition challenging an eviction order passed against the petitioner, who was in unauthorized possession of land owned by Respondent No. 6. The Court dismissed the petition, holding no jurisdictional error existed.

What did the court decide?

One month's time granted to vacate the suit premises; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Tarachand Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Petition (C) No.3086 of 2017

¶4

Tarachand S/o Shri Ramratan, aged about 35 years, R/o village Rajpuri, P.S. & Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG).

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (CG).

¶8

The Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (CG).

¶9

3.The Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG).

¶10

The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG).

¶11

Tahsildar, Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG).

¶12

6.Sukhram, S/o late Dipan, aged about 78 years, R/o Village Taparkela, P.S. and Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG).

¶13

--- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. A.N.Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶16

17/11/2017

¶17

(1) The application filed by the respondent No.6 herein under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has been allowed by the Tahsildar, Lakhanpur, District Surguja on 27.07.2013, which was affirmed by the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue, against which this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner.

¶18

(2 ) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur is unsustainable and bad in law.

¶19

(3) Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the

¶20

impugned order.

¶21

(4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order with utmost circumspection.

¶22

(5) Tahsildar, Lakhanpur has clearly recorded a finding that the respondent No.6 is a Bhumiswami of the suit premises of which the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the said land, therefore, invoking Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, order of eviction has been passed, which was affirmed by the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue.

¶23

(6 ) The concurrent findings recorded by three authorities are based on material available on record, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

¶24

(7) On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, one month's time is granted to vacate the suit premises.

¶25

(8) Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶28

L/-

Tarachand v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarachand v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khushal Jogi Vs C.G.Legislative Assembly and Ors.

M/S.Sandhu Ram Gupta Vs Union of India and Ors.

Daneshwar Dubey Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ano

Sriniwas Patel And Ors. Vs Coal India Limited And Ors.

Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Samarjeet Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh