Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55222 (CHH)

SURENDRA KUMAR BANJARE v. JANMEJAY

WPC/3067/2021 · 2025-05-04

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:20559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3067 of 2021 1 - Surendra Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Banjare Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Nusau Nawagaon, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Janmejay S/o Shri Jhugul Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Nusau Nawagaon, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh S/o R/o Village Nusau Nawagaon, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Dinesh S/o Shri Jhugul Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Nusau Nawagaon, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar/nayab Tahsildar Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 6 - The Revenue Inspector Kairasetganga, Tahsil Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 7 - The Patwari Halka No. 15, Kairasetganga, Tahsil Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Srivas, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 05-05-2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of eviction has been passed against the respondents No. 1 to 3 by the Naib Tahsildar, Mungeli according to the provisions of Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on 04.02.2021 but they are still in possession of the property. He further submits that appropriate direction may kindly be issued to the concerned Naib Tehsildar to take action against the respondents No. 1 to 3. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 3) Heard. 4) High Court is not an executing Court for the order passed by Naib Tehsildar, therefore, no such direction can be issued. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. 5) However, petitioner would be at liberty to move application before the concerned Naib Tehsildar according to the provisions of Section 248 (1- A) and (2-A) of the Code, 1959 for execution of the order dated 04.02.2021. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya