Golsai Gond Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Golsai Gond Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a judicial enquiry should be directed against Respondents No. 4 and 5 for allegedly demolishing the petitioner's house without proper and due enquiry, and whether appropriate action should be taken against them. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution: no one appeared for the petitioner on repeated calls, and it appeared that the petitioner had lost his interest in pursuing the petition. None of the three sought directions (judicial enquiry/action, compensation, registration of crime) was addressed or granted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPC No. 1538 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur) by Golsai Gond sought (i) a judicial enquiry against Respondent No. 4 (Prakash Sahu, Tahsildar, Marwahi) and Respondent No. 5 (Shivram Singh Marko, Sarpanch) for allegedly demolishing the petitioner's house without proper and due enquiry, (ii) appropriate action against them, (iii) compensation for the demolition, and (iv) a direction to Respondent No. 6 (SHO, Police Station Marwahi) to register a crime against Respondents No. 4 and 5. On the hearing date (07/11/2024) no one appeared for the petitioner on repeated calls. Counsel for the State/Respondents 1–3 & 6 (Swajeet Ubeja) and for Respondent No. 5 (Vaibhav Goverdhan), relying on Annexure-R-5/2 and Annexure-R-5/3, submitted that the petitioner himself had complained to the Tahsildar of defrauding by one Vijay Kashyap; on the petitioner's own statement (recording a Rs.35,000/- loan and a fraudulently executed deed of tenant), the Tahsildar ordered a spot inspection, initiated proceedings by notice to Vijay Kashyap and, adopting due procedure of law, demolished the illegal construction raised by Vijay Kashyap on the petitioner's land. Finding that the petitioner had lost interest in pursuing the petition, Hon'ble Bibhu Datta Guru, J., dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution; no relief was granted.

1

2024:CGHC:43446

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1538 of 2016

1 - Golsai Gond S/o Sundar Singh Gond, Aged About 54 Years R/o Main Road Village Kargikala, Post Danijundi, P.S. And Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,

2 - D.F.O. Bilaspur Now Pendra Office At Pendra Road, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

Digitally NARESH signed by KUMAR NARESH KAMDE KUMAR KAMDE

3 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pendra Road, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4 - Prakash Sahu, Tahsildar, Tahsil Marwahi, Office At Beside Rest House Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Shivram Singh Marko Sarpanch Village Kargikala, Post Gullidand, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattsigarh

6 - Station House Officer, Police Staiton Marwahi, Dsitrict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

2

For Petitioner : None. For the State/Res. : Shri Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. No. 1 to 3 & 6 For Resp. No. 4 : Shri Animesh Verma, Advocate. For Resp. No. 5 : Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Order on Board

07/11/2024

By the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking a judicial enquiry against the respondent No. 4 & 5 as they have demolished the petitioner’s house without proper and due enquiry and further seeking a direction towards the respondents to take appropriate action against them. The petitioner is also seeking a direction towards the respondents to make payment of compensation against the demolition of the petitioner’s house. The petitioner further seeking a direction towards the respondent No. 6 to register the crime against the respondents No. 4 & 5.

On repeated calls no one appeared for the petitioner, however, learned counsel for the respondent-State and the respondents No. 5 by referring Annexure-R-5/2 and Annexure-R-5/3 submits that the petitioner himself had lodged a complaint before the Tahsildar stating that he was defrauded by one Vijay Kashyap and Vijay Kashyap is raising illegal construction over his land and therefore appropriate action be taken against said Vijay Kashyap. On receipt of the said complaint of the petitioner, the Tahsildar has taken statement of the petitioner Gol Sai in which he has categorically stated that he had borrowed Rs.35,000/- from one Vijay Kashyap and fraudulently a deed of tenant has been executed by him and after the statement of the

3

petitioner the Tahsildar has directed a spot inspection and when it was found that on the land of the petitioner Gol Sai, Vijay Kashyap was raising illegal construction. The proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice to the said Vijay Kashyap and by adopting due procedure of law the illegal construction raised by said Vijay Kashyap over the land of the petitioner has been demolished.

As no one is appearing in the present petition on repeated calls, it appears that the petitioner has lost his interest in pursuing the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

JUDGE

Kamde