Disposed

Tejilal Tundey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Dec 2023WPC/5051/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Chhattisgarh High Court directed the Collector to consider the petitioner's application regarding land allotment. The Court did not quash the impugned Gram Sabha resolution but instead disposed of the petition by ordering the Collector to decide the land request within the stipulated timelines.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2/Collector to consider the petitioner's application (Annexure-P/3) filed on 27.09.2022.

Tejilal Tundey Vs State of Chhatti… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 5051 of 2023

¶5

Tejilal Tundey, S/o Late Vikram Tundey, Aged About 42 Years, Caste Harijan, R/o Village Tulaimuda, Post Tejpur, Tahsil & P.S. Ramanujgan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanandi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. The Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. The Gram Panchayat Telaimuda, Through its Sarpanch, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Telaimuda, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6. Superintendent Of Cowshed Project, Gram Panchayat, Telaimuda, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For State/respondents No.1 & 2	: Mr. P. Acharya, P.L. appears on advance copy.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order on Board

07.12.2023

1. Heard.

2. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶22

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to quash the impugned resolution of the Gram Sabha, Telaimuda dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure-P/5).

¶23

10.2 That, a direction may kindly be issued to the respondent authorities to shift the site for the construction of Gothan/Cowhed to some other intact government land as per the guideline including the land bearing survey No.1174.

¶24

10.3 That, a direction/command may kindly be issued to the respondent to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for allotment/settlement of the subject land as per the rules.

¶25

10.4 Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including cost of the petition.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a landless poor person and he is in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.450/1 total area 3.13 hectare, situated at Village Telaimuda, Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.), for last 70 to 80 years since his forefathers. The petitioner has

¶27

¶28

constructed the house on the said land and on some remaining portion of the aforesaid land, he cultivates. He would further submit that the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat Telaimuda earlier passed the resolution on 10.11.2020 vide Annexure-P/4 to construct the Cowshed/Gothan on the land bearing Khasra No.1174, rakba 0.960 hectare. Subsequently, again resolution was passed by the aforesaid Gram Panchayat dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure-P/5), in which site of construction of Cowshed/Gothan was changed to Khasra No.450/1, only to disturb the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has filed application vide Annexure-P/3 dated 27.09.2022 before the Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) seeking allotment/settlement of the land bearing Khasra No.450/1 total area 3.13 hectare, but the same has not been considered and decided yet. He would further submit that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) to consider and decide the application (Annexure-P/3) filed by the petitioner within stipulated period.

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the prayer may be allowed. The Collector/respondent No.2 will pass an appropriate order in accordance with applicable law/rules.

¶30

5. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the same is allowed and this petition is disposed of at this stage,

¶31

¶32

directing respondent No.2/Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) to consider and decide the application (Annexure-P/3) dated 27.09.2022 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file fresh representation within a period of 1 month from today before the respondent No.2/Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) along with a copy of this order for redressal of his grievance, thereafter respondent No.2/Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) shall consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with applicable law/rules, preferably within a further period of 60 days from the date of submission of representation filed by the petitioner.

¶33

6. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶35

Deepti Jha

Tejilal Tundey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejilal Tundey 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

Surendra Prasad Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Onkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Umakant Tiwari Vs Dr. (Smt.) Swati Vandana Singh Sisodiya

The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh