Lurki Vs State of Chhattisgarh

respondent No.2/ Tahsildar in case No.202205271300091/B-121/ 2021-22 (Annexure P/4) between Madan Pandey and others vs. Mithilesh Kumar Singh so far as it relates to petitioner, because the petitioner was no where party in the case between Madan Pandey and others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar Singh either before Collector or before Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.8 filed an application under Section 165 of the MP Land Revenue Code before Collector, District Surguja Ambikapur wherein Collector vide order dated 11.03.2002 set aside the patta granted in favour of Respondent No.3 in respect of Khasra No.2137/6, area 0.405 hectare as Respondent No.3 acting in contravention of Section 165 (7b) of the Code has executed a sale deed in respect of 0.081 hectare for Respondent No.4 to 7.Respondent No.3 and 4 to 7 challenged the order dated 11.03.2002 before Commissioner, Sarguja Division Ambikapur who vide order dated 22.02.2021 set aside the order dated 11.03.2002 in pursuant to which, Respondent No.3 and 4 to 7 moved before Tehsildar, Ramanujganj for entry of their name in the revenue records, which is pending according to the parties. The Tehsildar , Ramanujganj in the said proceedings issued notice to the petitioner through memo dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P/5) and asked him to present documents in respect of the subject land. Hence this Petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute was contested between Respondent Nos.3 to 7 and 8, however, without there being any connection, the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Khasra No.992 has been illegally roped in the dispute. Further, the petitioner has never been

¶31

3

¶32

made party to said proceedings either before Collector or Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, therefore, any proceeding by Tehsildar against the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Chattisgarh Land Revenue Code. He submits that petitioner has filed his reply in relation to proceedings of Tehsildar and contended that no order has been passed in respect of petitioner’s land as the disputed Khasra number is 2137/6 and the petitioner owns Khasra No.992.

¶33

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 7 and State counsel would not dispute the fact that petitioner was never made party before Collector, Commissioner and Tehsildar.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents, it is evident that Respondent No.8 filed an application under Section 165 of the MP Land Revenue Code before Collector, District Surguja Ambikapur wherein Collector vide order dated 11.03.2002 set aside the patta granted in favour of Respondent No.3 in respect of Khasra No.2137/6, area 0.405 hectare as Respondent No.3 acting in contravention of Section 165 (7b) of the Code has executed a sale deed in respect of 0.081 hectare for Respondent No.4 to 7.

¶35

Respondent No.3 and 4 to 7 challenged the order dated 11.03.2002 before Commissioner, Sarguja Division Ambikapur who vide order dated 22.02.2021 set aside the order dated 11.03.2002 in pursuant to which, Respondent No.3 and 4 to 7 moved before Tehsildar, Ramanujganj for entry of their name in the revenue records, which is pending according to the parties.

¶36

The Tehsildar, Ramanujganj in the said proceedings issued notice to the petitioner through memo dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P/5) and asked her to

¶37

4

¶38

present documents in respect of the subject land.

¶39

Considering the fact that the petitioner was nowhere party in the proceedings before Collector or Commissioner and she has not been heard nowhere, memo dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P/5) issued by the Tehsildar Ramanujganj is set aside/quashed and the Tehsildar is directed to let the aggrieved party before him file an application for impleadment of petitioner as party in the proceedings before him and thereafter, the Tehsildar shall issue notice to the petitioner and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Tehsildar shall proceed in the matter and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶40

With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Avinash

Lurki v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lurki 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tekchand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Mehta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmesh Kumar Mahaveer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nirmala Bhagat Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Pooja Mahato Vs Union of India

Vikas Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh