Usil Ram Rajwade Vs Siyambar

By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is questioning the order dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) by which the Board of Revenue has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 52 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 in the revenue revision by which the petitioner is questioning the order of ejectment passed by the Tahsildar, which was affirmed by the SDO and the Commissioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the application for interim relief under Section 52 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code has been rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that on the similar issue petition bearing WPC No. 74 /2020, is still pending before the High Court in which interim protection granted

¶26

3

¶27

on 10.01.2020 and the same is still continuing in favour of the petitioner and without considering the application on merits learned Board of Revenue has rejected the application under Section 52 of C.G. Land Revenue Code stating that the application is not bonafide. He further submits that issue involved in WPC No. 74/2020 is against interim ejectment passed by the Tahsildar on 27.01.2021 and the present revision which is before Board of Revenue is against the final order passed by the Tahsildar which has been affirmed by the SDO and Commissioner, therefore, the application under Section 52 of C.G. Land Revenue Code ought to have decided by Board of Revenue on merits.

¶28

Learned State counsel submits that the order of Board of Revenue is just and proper as the similar issue is pending before this court in WPC No. 74 of 2020.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the petitioner, as well as the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing WPC No. 74 of 2020.

¶30

Perusal of the pleadings of WPC No. 74 of 2020, shows that the order of interim order passed by the Tahsildar on 16.10.2019 was under challenged. But presently, Tahsildar has passed final order of ejectment dated 27.01.2021 and the same has been affirmed by the SDO and Commissioner and the revision is before Board of Revenue questioning the order of Tahsildar, SDO and

¶31

4

¶32

Commissioner.

¶33

Under the circumstances, considering the fact that application has been rejected only on the ground that similar issue is pending before the High Court in WPC No. 74 of 2020, where as the Revision before the Board of Revenue is against the final order of Tehsildar which has been affirmed by SDO and Commissioner. Hence, the order dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and is remanded back to Board of Revenue to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code without being influenced by the order passed in WPC No. 74 of 2020. It is further directed that Board of Revenue shall pass the necessary orders within a period of 15 days from the date of placing the present order before the Board of Revenue, in accordance with law and on its own merit.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to apprise the Board of Revenue about the order of this court.

¶35

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶38

Jyoti

Usil Ram Rajwade v. Siyambar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usil Ram Rajwade v. Siyambar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs National Institute of Technology Raipur

Chikitsak Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Inda Bai Vs Mathura Prashad (Dead)

Smt. Nirmala Shrivastav Vs State of Chhattisgarh