Rajendra Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 211 Chatt

                                    1

                (Proceedings through video conferencing)
                                                                     NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       Writ Appeal No. 6 of 2022


1.   Rajendra Jaiswal, S/o Late Shri Narain Prasad Jaiswal, aged about
     54 years, R/o Ward No.12, Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur, Tehsil and
     P.O.- Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.)


2.   Dhagibalram Rajwade (wrongly mentioned as Dhangibalram
     Rajwade), S/o Late Hukum Sai Rajwade, aged about 72 years,
     Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur, Ward No.11, Tehsil and P.O.-
     Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.)


3.   Jokan Ram Rajwade, S/o Late Ram Sai Rajwade, aged about 62
     years, Village Bharatpur, Panchayat Gorta and Tehsil and P.O. -
     Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.)


                                                             ---- Appellants


                                 Versus


1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat and Rural
     Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District
     Raipur, Chhattisgarh.


2.   Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur Through The Chief Municipal Officer,
     Lakhanpur, District-Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.


3.   Collector, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.


4.   Sub-Divisional   Officer   (Revenue)       Udaipur,   District-Sarguja,
     Chhattisgarh.


                                                           ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government 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

12.01.2022

Heard Mr. Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants. Also

heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 09.12.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 4958 of 2021,

whereby, the writ petition was disposed of providing that the petitioners

may approach the respondents No. 2 and 4 by way of representation and

in the event of filing of any such representation, the respondent

authorities were to consider the grievance of the petitioners and to pass

an appropriate order at the earliest.

3. The petitioners had challenged a notice inviting tender dated

08.11.2021 floated by respondent No. 2 for extension and construction of

boundary walls on cremation ground at Ambikapur-Bilaspur road

contending that they do not have any other access road or alternate road

to reach their land.

4. Averments are made in paragraph 1.4 of the writ appeal that

Amikapur-Bilaspur road is the only road by which one could reach the

land of the appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of

the Court to a representation (Annexure P/10 of the writ petition) dated

25.11.2021. The said representation was submitted by 29 persons. The

representation was addressed to Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), i.e.,

respondent No. 4 with a copy to, amongst others, the respondent No. 2.

6. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, on

instruction, submits that no road is blocked and that construction of the

boundary walls has already been raised up to the plinth level. It is further

submitted that, at the most, because of construction of the wall, the

appellants may not be able to use the government land which was being

used earlier.

7. The appellants have raised disputed questions of facts.

8. On due consideration, we are not inclined to interfere with the order

of the learned Single Judge. It is made clear that we have expressed no

opinion on merits of the case.

9. The appellants are given a liberty to file a fresh representation

before the respondent No. 2 within a period of two days from today and if

any such representation is filed, the said representation along with the

earlier representation will be considered and disposed of within a period

of three days thereafter. If no such representation is filed pursuant to the

order of this Court, the earlier representation filed by the appellants along

with others shall be disposed of within a period of five days.

10. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

No cost.

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




Brijmohan