Mangaloo Jolhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

4 - Sukram Jolhe S/o Govind Jolhe Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Barbhatha, Tandipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Tula Ram Jangade S/o Kariya Jangade Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Barbhatha, Tandipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

2 - Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶15

3 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶16

4 - Tahsildar Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶17

2

¶18

5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶19

6 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Barbhatha, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶20

7 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Barbhatha, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶23

For Petitioner	: None
For State	: Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶24

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶25

23.03.2026

¶26

1. None appears nor is any representation on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition.

¶27

2. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition has been filed challenging the resolution dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Gram Panchayat Barbhatha, Tandipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, whereby a decision was taken to construct a cattle shed (Gauthan) over the land bearing Khasra Nos. 479, 480 and 481. It is submitted that the petitioners have claimed long-standing possession over the said land and have alleged that the said resolution was passed without affording them any opportunity of hearing and with an intention to dispossess them from the land on which they are residing and cultivating since decades.

¶28

3. Learned State counsel further submits that, as per the pleadings, the petitioners had also moved various applications before the

¶29

3

¶30

competent authorities seeking grant of lease/patta in respect of the said land and had objected to the proposed construction of Gauthan. However, it is contended that the scheme under which the Gauthan was proposed, namely the Godhan Nyay Yojna, has subsequently come to an end, and the purpose for which the impugned resolution was passed no longer survives. It is thus submitted that the relief sought in the present petition has become infructuous and no further adjudication is required.

¶31

4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that none appears on behalf of the petitioners to press the matter, coupled with the subsequent development as pointed out by the learned State counsel that the scheme itself is no longer in operation, this Court is of the view that the cause of action, if any, does not survive for adjudication.

¶32

5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as having rendered infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶33

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶34

Yogesh

Mangaloo Jolhe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangaloo Jolhe 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

Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Fulkumari

Parmeshwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Bansal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Rupu Markam

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Beniram Sahu

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Champa