Allowed

Baliram Dharmani v. Gurdeep Singh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Dec 2020WPC/2902/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Revenue Board order, the High Court held that since the Commissioner's initial order dated 22.08.2017 attained finality, the Revenue Board could not deviate in subsequent proceedings. The writ petition was allowed on the extent of setting aside the impugned Board order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned Revenue Board order dated 21.07.2020 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Collector to comply with the Commissioner's order of 22.08.2017.

Baliram Dharmani Vs Gurdeep Singh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 2902 of 2020

¶5

Baliram Dharmani S/o Khushiram Dharamani Aged About 54 Years R/o Hanuman Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, (Cg)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gurdeep Singh S/o Gurucharan Singh, R/o Govind Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District-Raipur, (Cg)

¶9

Deepak Dharmani S/o Khusiram Dharmani, R/o Hanuman Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District-Raipur (Cg)

¶10

Tahsildar Raipur, Having Office At Tahsil Office Raipur, Tehsil And District-Raipur (Cg) ---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vishnu Koshta & Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocates For State : Mrs. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

03.12.2020

¶15

Heard.

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed against the order of the Revenue Board dated 21.07.2020 (Annexure P/1).

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the proceeding of demarcation initially against an order passed by the Additional Collector, the respondent No. 1 has preferred a revision before the Commissioner wherein the Commissioner on 22.08.2017 (Annexure

¶18

¶19

P/8) has passed the following order:-

¶20

^^bl izdkj vij dysDVj jk;iqj us rglhynkj jk;iqj }kjk fn;s x;s izfrosnu fnukad 17-11-2014 izkIr gksus ds ckn mij of.kZr izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k ugha fd;k x;k gSa tks fd Li"V :i ls izkd`frd U;k; fl)kar dk mYya?ku gSa rFkk [kljk uacj 167@58 dk jdck 0-667 ds LFkku 0-411 vfHkys[k esa nq:Lr dj uD'ks dks cVkafdr fd;s tkus dk tks vkns'k fn;k gS og fdl fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS og Hkh iz'uk/khu vkns'k esa mYysf[kr ugha gSA bl izdkj iz'uk/khu vkns'k fnukad 26-02-2015 mij of.kZr izfdz;k ds vuq:i u gksus ls fLFkj j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gksus ls iz'uk/khu vkns'k fnukad 26-02-2015 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vij dysDVj jk;iqj dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd rglhynkj jk;iqj ds izfrosnu fnukad 17-11-2014 ij mHk;i{kdkjksa dks vkifRr izLrqr djus dk volj nsus i'pkr~ izdj.k ds fdlh i{kdkj }kjk izLrqr vkifRr ij mHk;i{kdkj dks lquokbZ rFkk vkifRr djus okys i{kdkj dks mijksDr vkifRr ij izfrosnu nsus okys jktLo vf/kdkjh rglhynkj jk;iqj dk izfrijh{k.k dk volj nsus ds mijkar fof/kor~ vkns'k xq.knks"k ij ikfjr fd;k tkosA

¶21

mijksDrkuqlkj vkns'k [kqys U;k;ky; esa vkt fnukad 22@08@2017 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky;hu ineqnzk ls ikfjr ,oa mn~?kksf"krA^^

¶22

Learned counsel would further submit that thereafter the matter was

¶23

remanded back to the Collector, however without adhering to the direction made by the Commissioner in the revision, the Collector went beyond the said order and again passed an order which was again a subject of challenge by the petitioner before the Commissioner by way of the revision. The Revisional Court by Annexure P/10 dated 25.08.2018 has passed the following order:-

¶24

^^U;k;ky; vij dysDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ls Li"V gS fd rglhynkj }kjk izLrqr izfrosnu fnukad 17@11@14 ij mHk; i{k dks vkifRr izLrqr djus dk volj vkSj ,slh vkifRr izkIr gksus ij lquokbZ dk volj] izfrosnu nsus ds ckn jktLo vf/kdkjh ds i z fr ijh{k.k djkus dk volj nsus ds funsZ'k dk ikyu djus ds LFkku ij izdj.k U;k;ky; vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh dks izR;kofrZr dj mi;ZqDr funsZ'k ds ikyu ds fy, izsf"kr fd;k gSA izFke n`"V;k bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk

¶25

¶26

mYya?ku mi;ZqDr ifjizs{; esa U;k;ky; vij dysDVj ds vkns'k dks fof/k lEer ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vkns'k vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd U;k;ky; vk;qDr }kjk iwoZ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 22@8@17 dk v{kj'k% ikyu djsA

¶27

mijksDrkuqlkj vkns'k [kqys U;k;ky; esa vkt fnukad 25@08@2018 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky;hu ineqnzk ls ikfjr ,oa mn~?kksf"krA^^

¶28

Learned counsel would further submit that against this order of the Commissioner, the respondent No. 1 preferred the revision before the Revenue Board wherein the Revenue Board passed an order on 21.07.2020. It is also submitted that the initial order of the Commissioner which was passed on 22.08.2017 stands and has attained the finality and in any case the direction given by the Commissioner could not have been deviated in the subsequent proceeding. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner which was initially passed on 22.08.2017 having attained the finality, the subsequent order of the Commissioner could not have been set-aside by the Revenue Board on 21.07.2020.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 would submit that since the issue pertains to the demarcation of the land, therefore instead of keeping this petition pending let the matter be remanded to the Collector so that the issue of demarcation is adjudicated without delay.

¶30

Considering the facts and submission made by the parties and the documents on record, since the initial order of the Commissioner dated 22.08.2017 (Annexure P/8) has attained the finality, the deviation in the subsequent proceeding could not have been made, consequently the matter is sent back to the Court of Collector with a direction to comply

¶31

¶32

the order of the Commissioner dated 22.08.2017 in its verbatim and spirit. In consequence thereof, the order of the Revenue Board dated 21.07.2020 cannot stand to be allowed and accordingly the same is set-aside.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated

¶34

hereinabove.

¶35

Sd/- Sd/-

¶36

sd/-

¶37

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶38

Vishakha

Baliram Dharmani v. Gurdeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Dharmani v. Gurdeep Singh

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

R.K. Sharma Vs Shri R.K. Nagariya

Satna Minerals And Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Dilip Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vipin Sharma Vs Chhattisgarh Housing Board

Sirsan Nageshwar Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Kochar Vs State of Chhattisgarh