Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18076 (CHH)

LAKHAN LAL VASUDEV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/2481/2021 · 2025-07-28

Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:36940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2481 of 2021 1 - Lakhan Lal Vasudev S/o Late Shri Hiralal Vasudev Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Khajuri (Navagaon), Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Tahsildar Sakri Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : None For Respondents/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA and Mr. S.K. Puria, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 29/07/2025 1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner even when the matter was called twice. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.30 14:42:50 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the State submits that in a proceeding under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, an eviction order dated 06.04.2021 has already been passed by the Tahsildar Sakri, after affording opportunities for hearing to the petitioner concerned. Moreover, the petitioner has admitted the fact regarding encroachment, and a penalty of Rs.500/- has also been imposed on the petitioner along with 21 other persons, who had encroached upon the government land in an unauthorized manner. Learned counsel would submit that execution has also been effected and the State has taken possession of the subject land, after removal of the encroachment. He would further submit that the order is appealable under Section 44 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the State and also considering that no one has appeared to pursue the matter further, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss this petition for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka Judge