Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23778 (CHH)

BHARAT MATIYARA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/2141/2020 · 2025-04-11

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:17029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2141 of 2020 • Bharat Matiyara S/o Late Kunjal Ram Matiyara Aged About 50 Years R/o Thelkabod Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Managment Department , Mantralaya , The New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. Nazul Officer Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Kanker , District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3/ State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and be pleased to quash the notice issued by C.M.O. Nagar Palika Parishad, Kanker and directing C.M.O. Nagar Palika Parishad, Kanker not to evict the petitioner from the said land. 10.2 That, the matter is pending before office of the Collector, Kanker the petitioner has filed an application dated 03.09.2019 requesting waiving of the tax and penalty which is imposed upon him. The concerned authority imposed a total sum of Rs.11,11,644 to be payed by the petitioner on behalf of nazul land. The application has not yet been disposed off by the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 concerned authority within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. The tax and penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the concerned state authority is inappropriate and illegal. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. At the very outset, Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. 3. No objection from other side. 4. Permission granted. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti