Disposed

Rajendrapal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Nov 2017WPC/7004/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order on board disposed of the writ petition by following a precedent (Smt. Purnima Dani, WP No. 2858 of 1989). The court held that the issue of possession regarding land acquired under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act before March 10, 2000, is governed by that prior judgment, which provides protection under Section 3 of the 1999 Amendment.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Smt. Purnima Dani (supra).

Rajendrapal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No.7004 of 2008

¶5

Rajendrapal Singh S/o Late Shri Jaspal Singh, aged about 53 years, resident of Group M.I.G. 12 Padnabhpur, Durg, Director Anustha Builders and Colonizers Private Limited

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralay, D.K.S. Building Raipur (CG)

¶9

2. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (CG)

¶10

3. The Competent Authority through Collector, Durg, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Durg (CG)

¶11

4. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg, District Durg (CG)

¶12

5. Tahsildar (Nazul), Durg, District Durg (CG)

¶13

6. Smt. P. Laxmikantamma Wd/o Late Shri P. Krishnmurti, aged about 66 years, occupation-cultivation, resident of Kohka, at present residing at A-40, Street No.7, Central Avenue, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (CG)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava and Mr.Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Res.No.1 to 5 : Mr.Arun Sao, Dy.A.G.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

13/11/2017

¶19

1. Learned counsel for the parties would jointly submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by a decision of this Court in WP No.2858 of 1989 (Smt. Purnima Dani & Others Vs. The State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & Others), in which this Court held as under:-

¶20

“10. Without going into the disputed question of facts, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to make proper application before the competent authority to decide the issue with regard to the possession of the land, If the land in question have been acquired by the State respondents and other authorities in exercise of provisions of Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act, before 10^th March, 2000. The

¶21

¶22

acquisition and possession by the State Government consequent thereupon is saved under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1999.

¶23

In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of. No order asto costs.

¶24

The competent authority shall do the needful as early as possible preferable within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of an application made by the petitioners, if so advised.”

¶25

2. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Smt.Purnima Dani (supra). No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

Judge

B/-

Rajendrapal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendrapal Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Dagaur Vs Union Of India

Gulab Jain and Others Vs Union of India and Others

M/s Todarmull Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs South East Central Railways

Mukesh Rathore Vs Kamli Bai @ Kammu and Ors.

Kanoi Paper and Industries Ltd. Vs C.S.E.B. and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs Ashok Kumar Bhirchandani and Ors.