Umend Ram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:9320

¶3

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEP CHOUBEY CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.24 17:23:20 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1051 of 2025

¶7

1 - Umend Ram Yadav S/o Sukalu Ram Yadav Aged About 77 Years R/o Village Paraswara, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Rameshwar Puri Goswami S/o Rajendra Puri Goswami Aged About 36 Years Present R/o Village Bargan, Post- Junapara, TahsilTakhatpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Commissioner, Division Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶14

4 - The Tahsildar, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶15

5 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶16

6 - The Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Sub Division Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶17

2

¶18

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A.

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

24/02/2025

¶22

By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent Nos.5 & 6 not to interfere with the land which has been allotted to the petitioner No.1 and to the mother of petitioner No.2 by lease Annexure P-1 dated 05/05/1997.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that though the petitioners are having possession over the land in question which has been allotted to the them on some patta on lease by the State Government, the respondent Nos.5 & 6 are interfering with the possession of the land in question and trying to plant trees on the said land of the petitioners. He submits that though the petitioners are approaching the authority for demarcation of the land and the mutation of the said land in the name of the petitioners, the said demarcation and mutation of the land are not being done by the respondents authorities and even the applications are not accepted by the said authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers a similar identical order of this Court dated

¶24

3

¶25

16/08/2022 passed in WPC No.3513/2022 and submits that similar order may be passed in favour of the petitioners.

¶26

Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioners have not annexed any applications for mutation or demarcation in the writ petition, however, the petitioners are alleging that the said applications are not being accepted by the authority, which is not acceptable and without pleadings about the said fact, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the petitioners and order dated 16/08/2022 passed by this Court in WPC No.3513/2022 Annexure P-7.

¶28

From perusal of the pleading, it appears that 1 acre of land issued on lease to the petitioner No.1 and 2.50 acres of land issued to the mother of petitioner No.2, out of the Khasra No.15/1 situated at village Paraswara, Tahsil:Lormi, District:Mungeli. As per the pleading of the petitioners, it appears that the land has been granted on lease to the petitioners, however, no mutation proceeding has been done and no demarcation has been made on the land allotted to the petitioners. The petitioners are having the possession over the said land, however, respondent Nos.5 & 6 are trying to plant trees over the said land by interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are directed to approach the competent authority under the

¶29

4

¶30

C.G.Land Revenue Code, 1959 for demarcation of land as well as for mutation of the land pursuance to the lease granted to the them within 15 days and on the event of filing of such applications, the concerned authority/Tahsildar, Lormi, District:Mungeli, C.G. shall initiate proceeding for demarcation of the land within a further period of 50 days from filing of such applications and take necessary steps for demarcation of the land and necessary orders be passed on demarcation, and if the petitioners are having possession over the said land, the respondents shall not interfere with the peaceful possession of the land in question, till the date of such demarcation.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

SD/-

¶33

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶34

Amardeep

Umend Ram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umend Ram Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chikitsak Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Inda Bai Vs Mathura Prashad (Dead)

Smt. Nirmala Shrivastav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Singh Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Chopra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Alpa Sankhyak Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Kosgai Para Baloda Vs State of Chhattisgarh