Dismissed¶30

Amlai Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC26 Feb 2025WPC/1092/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; SDO (Revenue) Manendragarh; rejection of representation upheld; Rent Controlling Authority dual-capacity objection rejected; Shop No.6 allotment; Jeevan Deep Samity Community Health Centre; Nagar Palik Nigam Manendragarh; eviction order dated 13/12/2019 for non-payment of rent; civil suit for declaration of title dismissed 23/06/2023; no infirmity or illegality; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPC 1092 of 2025; Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10/07/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the SDO rejecting the petitioner's representation is just and proper; there is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. ¶29

Amlai Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 / 4

2025:CGHC:9781

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1092 of 2025

¶6

1 - Amlai Das S/o Late Ramcharan Das Aged About 62 Years R/o Behind Tahsil Office, Manendragarh, District - M.C.B. (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Municipal Corporation, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Collector M.C.B., District - M.C.B. (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Manendragarh, District - M.C.B. (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palik Nigam, Manendragarh, District - M.C.B. (C.G.)

¶13

5 – President, Jeevan Deep Samity Community Health Centre Manendragarh, District - M.C.B. (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Ramesh Soni Running Business Of Pathology Shop At Shishu Mandir School, Near Civil Court, Manendragarh, District - M.C.B. (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General

¶19

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶20

27/02/2025

¶21

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 10/07/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3/ SDO (Revenue), Manendragarh and he is also seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner and to cancel the allotment of Shop No.6 to the respondent No.6.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner preferred the WPC No. 3623/2023 which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14/08/2023 on the ground that the petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 11/07/2023 raising all the grounds with respect to allotment of construction of shop constructed by the respondent No.5 in the said writ petition, this Court directed the respondent No.5 to take decision on the pending representation of the petitioner. Pursuance to the said order of this Court, respondent authorities vide order dated 10/07/2024 (Annexure P/1), rejected the representation of the petitioner. He would further submit that earlier the Block Medical Officer on behalf of the Jeeven Deep Samiti, Community Health Centre, Manendragarh has filed an application against the petitioner for eviction of petitioner from shop No.6 because of non-payment of the rent and the SDO-cumRent Controlling Authority has passed the order dated 13/12/2019

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

by directing eviction of the petitioner from shop No.6 even a civil suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of title has also been dismissed by judgment dated 23/06/2023. He would further submit that the rejection of representation by the SDO itself is bad in law as the SDO being the Rent Controlling Authority has passed the order of eviction on 13/12/2019 at the same time, the representation of the petitioner has been considered by the SDO (Revenue) himself and rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 10/07/2024.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner’s civil suit has already been dismissed and there is an eviction order of the Rent Controlling Authority which has been passed by the Rent Controlling Authority on 13/12/2019 and the civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 23/06/2023 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Manendragarh. The representation of the petitioner has been considered by the SDO in accordance with law and the fact and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the civil suit for declaration has already been rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner before any higher forum. Hence the order passed by the SDO by referring the order of the Rent Controlling Authority as well as the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II is just and proper. Merely the SDO while acting as a Rent Controlling Authority passed an order cannot be a ground to challenge the order passed by the SDO by which the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶26

4 / 4

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as the order dated 13/12/2019 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, judgment dated 23/06/2023 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II and the civil suit No.03 A / 2017.

¶28

From perusal of the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority as well as the judgment of Civil Judge Class-II,it appears that the Rent Controlling Authority has passed an order of eviction because of failure of petitioner from payment of rent and the judgment of Civil Judge Class-II by which the suit for declaration has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II.

¶29

The order dated 10/07/2024 Annexure P/1 passed by the SDO is just and proper, by considering the fact and law and by looking to the judgment of civil suit and the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, the representation submitted by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the SDO, there is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. Merely the respondent No.3/ SDO has acted as a Rent Controlling Authority is not a ground to question the jurisdiction of the SDO who has passed the order rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶30

Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶32

$. Bhilwar

Amlai Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amlai Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naveen Kumar Bansal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yashwant Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkisun Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Chand Agrwal Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Ramnarayan Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh