Dismissed¶27

Ramsevak Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2024WPC/1785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 1785 of 2024; Ramsevak Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & others; writ petition dismissed on ground of alternative statutory appeal; impugned order dated 12.03.2024 by Additional Collector, Raipur (Revenue Case No. 202309113000015/11-A/89/Year 2022-23) allowing appeal of respondent No. 4 Raghunandan Sahu and setting aside SDO (Revenue) Abhanpur order; S. 40, CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993; maintainability; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; 03.04.2024.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the petitioner was held to be at liberty to take recourse to law (i.e., the statutory appeal under the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993). ¶27

Ramsevak Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 1785 of 2024

¶5

Ramsevak Sahu S/o. Shri Ramkishun Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Tila, Revenue, Circle Torla, Tehsil Gobranawapara, District- Raipur ( C.G.).

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa, Raipur, Atal Nagar, DistrictRaipur (C.G.).

¶9

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Additonal Collector/ Apar Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.).

¶10

3. Sub Divisonal Officer ( Revenue), Prescribed Authority, Abhanpur District- Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

4. Raghunandan Sahu, S/o Mangluram Sahu, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Tila, Revenue Circle Torla, Tehsil Gobranawapara, District- Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

0 3.04.2024

¶17

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶18

“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to call for entire records with respect to Proceedings drawn Under S. 40 proceedings drawn under the Adhiniyam of 1993 (Ann. P/1& Ann. P/2).

¶19

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and Set aside the Order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), passed in Revenue Case No. 202309113000015/11-A/89/ Year 2022-23.

¶20

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to direct the Respondent Authorities to pay the legal cost and expense from the Respondent Authorities.

¶21

10.4 Any other relief which may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and

¶22

¶23

circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant petition has been filed against the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur, wherein, the Additional Collector, Raipur allowed the appeal of respondent No. 4 and rejected the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Abhanpur, District Raipur. Thus, the petitioner would pray to setaside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that there is an efficacious alternative remedy according to the provisions of the CG. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, therefore the present petition is not maintainable.

¶26

Heard counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

Taking into consideration the fact that the Additional Collector, Raipur vide impugned order dated 12.03.2024 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 and set-aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Abhanpur and the same is appealable as per the provisions of the CG. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, in the opinion of this Court, no good ground is available to interfere in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶28

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

$iddhant

Ramsevak Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsevak Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpanchala Chaudhary Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalawati Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Neelam Security Service Vs Employee Provident Fund Organization

Smt. Mankunwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh