Allowed

Smt. Rajmani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Nov 2022WPC/4099/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to enforce an order dated 01.07.2022 of the Sub Divisional Officer instructing the Tahsildar to effect online entry of the petitioner's name in revenue records, which the Tahsildar had not complied with.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to comply with the Sub Divisional Officer's order of 01.07.2022 within 30 days.

Smt. Rajmani Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition(C) No. 4099 of 2022

¶5

Smt. Rajmani, W/o Vishwanath, Aged about 71 Years, R/o Bijapur, Police Station Bijapur, Tahsil Bijapur District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The District Collector, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Tahsildar, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bijapur, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate. For Res. No.1 to 4/State : Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order on Board

01/11/2022

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 16.10.2001, the petitioner has obtained a Patta for the land bearing Khasra No.991/1262, Rakba 0.010 hectare situated at village Bijapur. The Rin-Pustika has also been issued in favour of the petitioner for the same land. The name of the petitioner is also recorded in the revenue records. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application for online entry

¶20

¶21

of the land in the revenue records. On the basis of said application, respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bijapur vide order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure-P/1) directed to respondent No.4Tahsildar, Bijapur to enter the name of the petitioner for online. Despite that respondent No.4 has not complied with the order of SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), therefore, it is prayed that this petition may be disposed of only directing to respondent No.4 to comply with the order of respondent No.3 as early as possible and any outer limit may also be fixed by this Court in this regard.

¶22

Learned State Counsel does not oppose the above limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

On due consideration and after perusal of the impugned order and other documents annexed with the petition, the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner appears to be genuine.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Bijapur, District Bijapur to comply with the order of respondent No.3 dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure-P1) as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶27

Vasant

Smt. Rajmani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajmani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuwan Lal Patel Vs Padmani Chauhan

Pawan Likhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

M/S J. P. Builders Vs Smt. Uma Agrawal

Hirendra Patel, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gayatri Bai Gendle Vs Rubin Kumar Gendle

Dewari Lal Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh