Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4758 (CHH)

DEVBARAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/552/2020 · 2025-06-30

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:29441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 552 of 2020  Devbaran S/o Mahesh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kevra, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Tahsildar Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chandan Singh S/o Krishna Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kevdi, Police Station And Tehsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None. For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be called for the record relating to petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the revenue proceeding no. 119/2019 pending before the court of Tehsildar, Lakhanpur, District Surguja C.G. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. It appears that a proceeding under the provisions of Section 250 of the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.01 17:18:01 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was pending before the Tahsildar, Lakhanpur, District Surguja, District Surguja C.G. bearing proceeding No. 119/2019 and Civil Suit with respect to property-in-question was pending before the Civil Judge, Class 2, Ambikapur, therefore, prayer was made to quash the proceeding pending before revenue Court. 3. This petition was filed on 18.01.2020. There is no interim order in favour of the petitioner, by efflux of time, the proceeding pending before the Tahsildar would have been closed; therefore, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable, accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive his prayer, if cause of action still survives. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant