Shri Sanjay Roy vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3781 Chatt

                                      1



                                                                         NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         Writ Appeal No. 445 of 2021


     Shri Sanjay Roy, S/o Shri Kalipad Roy, aged about 56 years, Caste -

     Namosudra, R/o Village East Boregaon, Tahsil Farasgaon, District

     Kondagaon (C.G.)

                                                                  ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue,

      Minsitry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur

      (C.G.)

2.   The Collector, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

3.   Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

4.   Tahsildar, Tahsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

5.   Gopal Roy, S/o Shri Bhagyadhar, aged about 82 years, Caste -

      Namosudra, R/o Village East Boregaon, Tahsil Farasgaon, District

      Kondagaon (C.G.)

6.   Mukund Roy, S/o Shri Bhagyadhar, aged about 80 years, Caste

      Namosudra, R/o Village East Boregaon, Tahsil Farasgaon, District

      Kondagaon (C.G.)

                                                              ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Purit Ruparel, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondents No. 5 and 6 : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

17.12.2021

Heard Mr. Purit Ruparel, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard

Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for

respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel

appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 10.11.2021, whereby,

the respondent No. 4 was directed to take up the proceeding in execution of an

order dated 18.07.2019 passed in Revenue Case No. 01/A-70/2018-19 against

respondent No. 5 therein (appellant herein) and to execute the same at the

earliest, preferably within a period of 45 days.

3. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the respondent No. 5 (appellant

herein), despite his eviction was sought in terms of the order dated 18.07.2019.

4. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would go to show that

the writ petition was filed alleging inaction of respondent No. 4 in initiating

process for eviction of respondent No. 5 (appellant herein).

5. Mr. Ruparel submits that the order of learned Single Judge is liable to be

set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as in the said

case, neither notice was issued to respondent No. 5 (appellant herein) nor the

respondent No. 5 (appellant herein) was heard before passing the impugned

order. It is submitted that the writ petitioners knowingly suppressed the fact that

being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the respondent

No.3, the appellant had preferred an appeal under Section 250 of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which was registered as Appeal

Case No. 202103950100025/A-70/20-21. It is submitted that initially

challenging the order of Tahsildar dated 18.07.2019, the appellant had

preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Farasgaon,

District Kondagaon and the same having been dismissed on 07.01.2021, the

appeal was preferred against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

on 15.03.2021.

6. The Commissioner, while admitting the appeal on 22.03.2021 had also

passed an order of status quo.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Ruparel that inspite of the petitioner being aware of

the said order, suppressing the aforesaid order of status quo, writ petition was

filed.

8. Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan submits that it is correct that the appeal is

pending and order of status quo was passed in such appeal as submitted by

Mr. Ruparel. He, however, submits that it cannot be said from the materials on

record as to whether the writ petitioners were aware of the pendency of the

aforesaid proceeding when the writ petition was filed.

9. Having regard to the fact that an appeal is pending, the direction as

made by the learned Single Judge cannot be allowed to be sustained.

10. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge is set

aside.

11. The writ appeal is allowed. No cost.

                                 Sd/-                                        Sd/-
                         (Arup Kumar Goswami)                       (N.K. Chandravanshi)
                             Chief Justice                                 Judge
Brijmohan