Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 805 Chatt
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 58 of 2022
Shri Thakur Ramchadraji Swami Jaitu Sao Mandir Trust Through It's
Secretary Mahendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Radheshyam Agrawal,
Aged About 75 Years, Presently Residing At Purani Basti Saraswati
Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And
Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Additional Tahsildar Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Anil Kumar Jain S/o Anup Chand Jain Aged About 54 Years R/o
Shankar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Astha Shuka, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri N. K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
16.02.2022
Heard Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arjit
Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla,
learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 and
Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 21.01.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge rejecting an application filed by the appellant
for referring the case to a Larger Bench on the ground that there is a
conflict of opinion in the case of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others, reported in AIR 2016 Chh 17 and Sunil Tawari v.
Janak Ram Kuree, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 2591, with regard
to the question as to whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India shall be maintainable against an order passed by the
Board of Revenue.
3. In the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
writ petitioner had put to challenge an order of Additional Tahsildar, dated
28.03.2021.
4. The learned Single Judge opined that there was no such issue in
the present case and accordingly, rejected the application.
5. As the writ petition is pending consideration before the learned
Single Judge, we decline to entertain this appeal and dispose of the
same by reserving liberty to the appellant to raise all contentions
including maintainability of the writ petition, if the need so arises, after
disposal of the writ petition by initiating appropriate proceedings.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N. K. Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!