Remanded

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal @ Rajkumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2024WPC/610/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged the recording of his brother's name alone in revenue records after the Sub-Divisional Officer had directed his inclusion. As the court declined to comment on merits, it remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for an objective decision within 90 days, keeping the interim order in force. No final disposal on merits was made.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without comments on merits; matter remanded to Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) with direction to decide objectively within 90 days; interim order of 03.08.2022 maintained.

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal @ Rajkumar Agrawal Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 610 of 2021

¶5

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal @ Rajkumar Agrawal S/o Late Vasuki Kumar Aged About 52 Years R/o Cinema Line, Shankar Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil/p.O/p.S.- Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Tahsildar Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. Samiti Prabandhak Prathamik Krishi Saakh Sahakari Samiti (Maryadity), Dhurrabandha, Village- Dhurrabandha, P.O.- Bijradih, Tahsil/p.S.- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Yadunandan Agrawal Aged About 75 Years R/o Hathani Para/mahabir Ward, Bhatapara, P.S./p.O./tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Neeraj Choubey , Advocate along with Ms. M. Asha, Advocate
For State	: Mr . Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. along with Mr.
	Swajeet Singh Upveja, P.L.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

1 1.03.2024

¶17

Facts of the present case are that there are agricultural lands situated in Village Dhurrabandha, Tahsil Bhatapara C.G., a total of 32.560 hectares of land was recorded in the name of Smt. Kaushilya, Surya Kumar, Rajendra Kumar (petitioner), Kusum Bai, Ravindra Kumar (respondent No. 4) and Surendra Kumar. Smt. Kaushilya, Kusum bai and Surendra Kumar are no more and their legal representatives have not been brought on the revenue records. Respondent No. 4 namely, Ravindra Kumar recorded his name in the revenue record against the entire land. At the same time, the names of Rajendra Kumar and Kumum Bai were

¶18

¶19

deleted. Respondent No. 4 registered his name to sell paddy at the Paddy Procurement Center. WPC No. 4380 of 2019 was filed by Ravindra Kumar Agrawal against such illegal action taken by the Revenue Authorities against the interest of said Ravindra Kumar Agrawal and the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 03.12.2019 directed the respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhatapara to verify the entitlement of Ravindra Kumar Agrawal. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 30.01.2020 decided the matter and made the specific observation to the effect that Ravindra Kumar Agrawal and the present petitioner Rajendra Kumar Agrawal @ Rajkumar Agrawal and the legal representatives of the deceased/coowners are entitled to inherit the property. Despite the specific order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhatapara, the Tahsildar recorded the name of respondent No. 4/Ravindra Kumar Agrawal only in the revenue records.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite specific direction issued by this Court in WPC No. 4380 of 2019 and the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the Tahsildar recorded the name of respondent No. 4 only in the revenue records. He would further submit that the decision taken by the Tahsildar is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the order passed in WPC No. 4380 of 2019 and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue).

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsels for the State would oppose. They would submit that the Tahsildar after due satisfaction recorded the name of respondent No. 4. They would further submit that the petitioner ought to have approached the Higher Revenue Authorities for redressal of his grievances.

¶22

Heard counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

Taking into consideration the fact that the Co-ordinate Bench in WPC No. 4380 of 2019 directed the Revenue Authorities to enquire and take appropriate decision, and thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) also passed specific order in favour of the petitioner (Rajendra Kumar Agrawal) and legal representatives of

¶24

¶25

deceased /co-owners, but the Tahsildar recorded the name of respondent No. 4 only in the revenue records, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhatapara for redressal of his grievances.

¶26

It is expected that the concerned Authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhatapara shall take an appropriate decision in an objective manner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording the due opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties.

¶27

For the period of 90 days, the interim order granted on 03.08.2022 shall remain in force.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶29

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶30

$iddhant

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal @ Rajkumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal @ Rajkumar Agrawal 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

Shakuntala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravishankar Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Collector and District Mission Director, Vs the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Century Cement Education Society Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Prasad Khatik Vs State of Chhattisgarh