Anil Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - The Board Of Revenue Through The Secretary, Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - The Commissioner (Revenue) Raipur Division, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶14

5 - The Additional Collector District Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parisad Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶15

7 - Smt. Shobha Dubey Widow Of Late Shri Suresh Dubey, R/o Anand Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Akshay Dubey S/o Late Suresh Dubey, R/o Anand Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

9 - Anmol Dubey S/o Late Suresh Dubey, R/o Anand Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

2

¶18

10 - Smt. Meena Dubey Widow Of Late Shri Ramesh Dubey R/o Amrapali Society, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

¶19

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respective : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate and Mr. Respondent (s) Shreyansh Mehta, P.L.

¶20

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD

¶21

ORDER ON BOARD

¶22

23/07/2026

¶23

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the revision preferred against the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, has been dismissed on the ground that the order impugned therein is merely an interlocutory order directing impleadment of Smt. Meena Dubey as one of the revision petitioners. It has been held that since the matter is still pending for final adjudication before the concerned Commissioner, the revision against the interlocutory order is not maintainable and is premature.

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision was originally filed by Smt. Shobha Dubey, wife of Late Suresh Dubey, along with two others. After filing of the revision, on 03.10.2022, an application was moved by the original revision petitioner, Smt. Shobha Dubey, seeking impleadment of Smt. Meena Dubey, wife

¶25

3

¶26

of Late Ramesh Dubey, as Revision Petitioner No. 4. The petitioner objected to the said application on the ground that, if at all, Smt. Meena Dubey could be impleaded as a respondent and not as a revision petitioner. It is further submitted that no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Smt. Meena Dubey and, therefore, no proceedings can be initiated on her behalf. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

¶27

3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that whenever any party is impleaded, whether on the side of the petitioner or the respondent, an appropriate Vakalatnama authorising the concerned advocate to represent such party is required to be filed. Insofar as the objection raised by the petitioner that Smt. Meena Dubey cannot be impleaded as a revision petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the said contention is misconceived. A revision petitioner is at liberty to implead any person as a co-petitioner, if so advised. However, upon such impleadment, the concerned party is required to file a duly executed Vakalatnama authorising the advocate to represent and argue the matter on his or her behalf.

¶28

4. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Commissioner to require the filing of a Vakalatnama on behalf of Smt. Meena Dubey and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. Since Revenue Case No. 220/c-14/2021-22 is pending before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the

¶29

4

¶30

Additional Commissioner. The State is also directed to transmit a copy of this order to the concerned Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner shall thereafter proceed with the case after ensuring that the Vakalatnama on behalf of Smt. Meena Dubey has been duly filed. In the event that no Vakalatnama is filed on her behalf, it shall be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application seeking deletion of her name from the array of parties, in accordance with law.

¶31

5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶32

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶33

Saurabh

Anil Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Singh v. the 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kachruram Bhuarya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ramsharan Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Uma Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

N.A. Jarin (Dead) through Ansar Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishnarao Katare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ayaz Ahamed Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh