State Of Chhattisgarh vs Hemlal Verma
2021 Latest Caselaw 3349 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                             NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               WA No. 13 of 2020

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
   Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District
   Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

3. The    Sub     Divisional   Officer    (Revenue)   Mungeli,   District   Mungeli
   Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Appellants

                                        Versus

1. Indradaman Singh S/o Raje Singh Aged About 39 Years Caste - Thakur,
   R/o Village Koliha, Ward No. 9, Post Office Doda, Tahsil Mungeli, District
   Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, District Mungeli
   Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Respondents

For Appellants : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General alongwith Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents : None

WA No. 31 of 2020

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector District- Kabeerdham, Civil And Revenue District - Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kawardha, District - Kabeerdham

---- Appellants

Versus

1. Ganeshu Ram S/o Girwar Gond Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Biranpur Khurd, Gram Panchayat Daniyakhurd, Thana And Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, Civil And Revenue District - Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh,

District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

2. Dhurchand S/o Shri Tibhu Satnami Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Biranpur Khurd, Gram Panchayat Daniyakhurd, Thana And Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, Civil And Revenur District - Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

3. Phuluk Ram S/o Shri Chamru Gond Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Khapari Gram Panchayat Daniyakhurd, Thana And Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara , Civil And Revenue District - Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

4. Balram S/o Shri Ishari Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Khapari Gram Panchayat Daniyakhurd, Thana And Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara , Civil And Revenue District - Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Appellants : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General alongwith Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 : None For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.

WA No. 40 of 2020

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellants

Versus

1. Hemlal Verma S/o Ramchandra Verma Aged About 31 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Makkatola, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

2. Dhaluram Verma S/o Amoliram Verma Aged About 57 Years R/o Village

Hirapur Gram Panchayat Makkatola, Tahsil Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3. Ramji Verma S/o Baharu Ram Verma Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Jhirapur Gram Panchayat Makkatola, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General alongwith Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None

Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. N.K.Chandravanshi, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

29/11/2021

1. None appears on behalf of respondents in Writ Appeal No. 13/2020,

though, the office note dated 22.09.2021 indicates that dasti notice was served

on the respondents.

2. In Writ Appeal No. 31/2020, Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel

appears for respondent No. 3. He submits that other respondents have not

entered appearance despite service of dasti notice.

3. In Writ Appeal No. 40/2020, Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel

appears for respondent No. 1. He submits that despite service of dasti notice,

other respondents have not entered appearance.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate

General appearing for the appellants in all the three cases that by order dated

28.11.2019, the learned Single Judge allowed eight writ petitions. He further

submits that five review petitions being Review Petition No. 1/2020, 2/2020,

5/2020, 6/2020 and 19/2020 were preferred in respect of the other five writ

petitions and that same were allowed vide orders dated 28.01.2020,

30.01.2020, 17.01.2020, 30.01.2020 and 28.01.2020, respectively.

3. In that view of the matter, he submits that he may be permitted to

withdraw these three appeals with liberty to file review petitions.

4. Prayer is not opposed by Mr. Sahu or Mr. Kotecha, learned counsel

for the respective respondents.

5. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand disposed of granting liberty to

the appellants to file review applications, as prayed for. No cost.

                    Sd/-                                            Sd/-
            (Arup Kumar Goswami)                              (N.K.Chandravanshi)
               CHIEF JUSTICE                                        JUDGE




Amit