Dismissed

Siyaram Kaushik v. Sukhsagar Rajak

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2024WP227/164/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to set aside the appellate court order dismissing his temporary injunction application. The High Court disposed of the petition affirming the courts below but directed revenue authorities to decide a pending batankan application expediently.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to await expedited decision of revenue authorities on pending batankan application.

Siyaram Kaushik Vs Sukhsagar Rajak — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:34977

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 164 of 2021

¶6

Siyaram Kaushik S/o Late Ramphal Kaushik Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Transport Nagar, Bilaspur-Raipur Main Road Parsada, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Mo. No. 9425530390

¶7

... Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶8

versus

¶9

1. Sukhsagar Rajak S/o Kedar Rajak Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Yatayat Nagar, Azad Chowk Parsada, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Shivkumar Rajak S/o Kedar Rajak Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Yatayat Nagar, Azad Chowk Parsada, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents/Defendants

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Devershi Thakur, appears on behalf of Mr. Shubham Thakur & Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate. For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, PL.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

2 / 3

09/09/2024

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records regarding present case from Courts below. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Learned 5^th Additional District Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.30/2020 Parties “Siyaram Kaushik Vs. Sukhsagar Rajak & Others” (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to allow the application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner/plaintiff and restrain to the respondents for interference of the possession to the suit land. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just, in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶20

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the plaintiff purchased the land bearing Khasra No.239/2 admeasuring area 0.35 acre situated at Village Parsada, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) through a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1972 from the predecessor of respondents and out of the said land, 0.07 acre was sold to Dwarika Prasad and other 0.07 acre was sold to Sarla Agrawal and the remaining 0.21 acre land was in possession of the plaintiff on record. However, on the spot, the plaintiff is in possession of the remaining whole land of the said Khasra No.239. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a Suit for declaration of 0.21 acre, which was purchased and counsel would submit that subsequently, he has also made an amendment in the plaint, claiming adverse possession of the remaining 0.14 acre of the land in the said Khasra. In the

¶21

3 / 3

¶22

said Suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application for the temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court by way of the impugned order. Hence this petition.

¶23

3. When a query has been put to counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff as to whether any batankan has been made at the time of purchase and the revenue map has been corrected, he submits that B-1 and Khasra batankan has already been made but necessary correction has not been made in the revenue map. He submits that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the competent revenue authority to decide their application in an expeditious manner in accordance with law.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the other side would not oppose the said limited prayer.

¶25

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶26

6. Having considered the submissions, the concurrent finding of fact and also considering that the trial Court and the Appellate Court had rejected the injunction application and further considering the limited prayer sought by the petitioner herein, this petition is disposed of affirming the order passed by both the Courts below. However, this Court only observes that if any application is filed by the petitioner herein before the competent revenue authority for batankan of the subject land, which was purchased by him in the revenue map, the same shall be decided in an expeditious manner in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶27

7. With the aforesaid observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶29

Priyanka

Siyaram Kaushik v. Sukhsagar Rajak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyaram Kaushik v. Sukhsagar Rajak

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

Vijay Kumar Agrawal Vs Ramcharan Chakradhari

Ashutosh Chaubey Vs Smt. Roshni Tiwari

Kartiko Vs Prabhu Ram

Indresh Patel Vs Narad Chaudhary

Surja Bai Vs Manharan Devdas

Bharat Variha Vs Smt. Draupati Variha