Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42383 (CHH)

SANTOSH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/4733/2025 · 2025-09-03

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:45225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4733 of 2025 Santosh S/o Sukhram Aged About 48 Years Caste- Ganda, R/o Mirchid, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G. 2 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. 3 - The Tahsildar, Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. 4 - Maal Jamadar, Tahsil Office, Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G. 5 - Gangaram S/o Guharam Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village- Mirchid, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State-respondent : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/09/2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.04 17:41:19 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 and dispossession warrant dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is in possession over the subject land bearing khasra no. 1051/4 admeasuring area 0.025 hectare situated at Village-Mirchid, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh since last more than 20 years. On 27.06.2022 the respondent no. 5 filed application under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short Code, 1959) before the respondent no. 3 for dispossession of petitioner from the aforesaid subject land bearing khasra no. 1051/4 and the respondent no. 3 has registered Revenue Case no. 202207210800016/2021-22, but subsequently on account of non- representation on behalf of respondent no. 5, vide order dated 19.10.2022 the respondent no. 3 has dismissed the application for want of prosecution. After more than 2½ from the dismissal of application U/s 250 of Code, 1959 for want of prosecution, the respondent no. 5 has again moved same nature of application U/s 3 250 of Code, 1959 for dispossession of the petitioner from the subject land. After knowledge of filing of above application, the petitioner filed an objection for rejection of subsequent application on the ground of dismissal of same nature application for want of prosecution. However, without considering the objection of petitioner, vide impugned order dated 23.06.2025 the respondent no. 3 has allowed the subsequent application and directed to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land and to hand over the possession of said land to the respondent no. 5. Hence this petition. 3. Learned State counsel contended that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, this petition is not maintainable before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Further considering that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 to file appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar before the concerned SDO (R). As the learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted the fact that the 4 petitioner has already been filed the appeal before the concerned SDO (R), which is still pending before him. 6. Looking to the aforesaid facts, this petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter before the concerned SDO(R). 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant