Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2025WPC/692/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a writ petition challenging the quashing of Section 110 mutation proceedings by the Tahsildar on non-appearance. The Court held that dismissal for want of prosecution violated Section 110(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which mandates disposal on merits in the absence of parties. The impugned order was quashed and matters remanded.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29/04/2024 dismissing proceedings for want of prosecution is quashed; matter remanded to Tahsildar to proceed under Section 110 and decide on merits.

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally
signed by
AMARDEEP
AMARDEEP CHOUBEY
CHOUBEY Date:
2025.02.04
18:48:03
+0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:5993

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 692 of 2025

¶7

1 - Dinesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari Aged About 63 Years At Present Address - Chamber No 150 High Court Bar Association Building High Premises Bodari Bilaspur (Cg) R/o Village Bansankara Tahsil Simga, Patwari Halka No.00013 District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Cg)

¶8

2 - Smt. Veena Sharma W/o Shri Suresh Prasad Sharma Aged About 65 Years D/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari R/o Village Bansankara Tahsil Simga, Patwari Halka No.00013 District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Cg)

¶9

3 - Smt. Kiran Pandey W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Pandey Aged About 61 Years D/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari R/o Village Bansankara Tahsil Simga, Patwari Halka No.00013 District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Cg)

¶10

4 - Smt. Ratna Shukla W/o Late Shri V. N. Shukla Aged About 59 Years D/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari R/o Village Bansankara Tahsil Simga, Patwari Halka No.00013 District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Cg)

¶11

5 - Smt. Kumud Sharma W/o Shri Hemant Sharma Aged About 57 Years D/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari R/o Village Bansankara Tahsil Simga, Patwari Halka No.00013 District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Cg)

¶12

¶13

... Petitioner(s)

¶14

versus

¶15

1 - State of chhattisgarh through principal secretary, (revenue) mantralay bhawan atalnagar nawa raipur district raipur (cg)

¶16

2 - the secretary revenue department mahanadi bhawan Nawa Raipur District Raipur (cg)

¶17

3 - Collector district balodabazar bhatapara (cg) 4 - SDM Simga district, balodabazar bhatapara (cg) 5 - Tahsildar simga district balodabazar bhatapara (cg)

¶18

6 - Shri Aniruddha mishra tahasildar simga, district balodabazar bhatapara (cg)

¶19

7 - Patwari halka no. 00013 (50006045) Village- Bansankara, Tahsil - Simga District Baloda-Bazar Bhatapara (Cg)

¶20

…. Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer. State

¶22

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

03/02/2025

¶25

By the present writ petitioner, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 29/04/2024 passed by the Tahsildar, Simga, by which, the Tahsildar has dismissed the proceedings drawn under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,

¶26

¶27

1959 (for short ‘the Code’) on the application of the petitioner for want of prosecution, as on previous dates and on the date of hearing on 29/04/2024, the petitioner could not appear in the said proceedings.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the intimation of the petitioner, the mutation proceedings under Section 110 of the Code were initiated by the Tahsildar, however, the same has been dismissed on 29/04/2024 because of non-appearance of the petitioner. The Tahsildar observed in the order impugned that on the earlier date of hearing also, the petitioner failed to appear. He further submits that the provisions of Section 110 (6) of the Code provides that no case under this Section shall be dismissed in the absence of any party and shall be disposed of in order of merit. However, the Tahsildar without deciding the proceedings under Section 110 of the Code on merits dismissed the proceedings itself for want of prosecution.

¶29

Learned counsel for the State would submit that after the dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner, the petitioner should approach the authority concerned by filing an application for restoration of the said proceedings, hence, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

¶30

I have heard both the parties and perused the order dated 29/04/2024.

¶31

¶32

From perusal of the said proceedings, it appears that the proceedings drawn on the initiation of the petitioner under Section 110 of the Code, however, the same has been dismissed due to the absence of the petitioner for want of prosecution though there is a specific provision under Section 110 (6) of the Code which provides as follows:-

¶33

“(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 35, no case under this Section shall be dismissed in the absence of any party and shall be disposed of in order of merit.”

¶34

In view of above, the Tahsildar has to continue with the proceedings to decide the same on merits, hence, the dismissal of the proceedings itself for want of prosecution only on the ground of the absence of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions prescribed under Section 110 (6) of the Code, 1959, hence, the order dated 29/04/2024 Annexure P-5 is liable to be and is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar to proceed with the matter as per the provisions contained under Section 110 of the Code, 1959 in accordance with law and the same be decided on its own merits.

¶35

With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition stands allowed .

¶36

SD/-

¶37

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶38

Judge

¶39

Amardeep

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanskar Mahapatra Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Chaiti Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Basanti Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uttam Kumar Gilhare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Banka Constructions Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Banka Constructions Vs State of Chhattisgarh