Chattisgarh High Court
Badri Prasad Modi vs Sanjay Modi on 12 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 329 of 2022
Badri Prasad Modi, S/o Late Madanlal Modi, aged about 72 years,
resident of in front of Saptdev Temple, Main Road, Korba (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Sanjay Modi, S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal Modi, aged about 58 years,
R/o Main Road Korba, District Korba (C.G.).
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and
Disaster Management, Secretariat, Capital Complex, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District - Korba (C.G.).
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, District - Korba (C.G.).
5. The Tehsildar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.).
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
12.07.2022
Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondent
No. 1 and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 29.03.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1508 of 2022.
3. I.A. No. 3 of 2022 is an application for grant of leave to appeal.
4. Mr. B.P. Sharma submits that an order dated 27.09.2021 was
passed by the Tehsildar, Korba, at the instance of the appellant, as
against which the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner filed the writ petition
before this Court without arraying him as party-respondent. As the writ
petition came to be disposed of in his absence and as the appellant is
aggrieved, leave to appeal may be granted.
5. Mr. Shukla submits that leave to appeal ought not to be granted as
the order dated 27.09.2021 was passed at the instance of the appellant in
absence of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1.
6. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5 has no objection for grant of leave
to appeal.
7. How the order dated 27.09.2021 came to passed may not be
relevant for the purpose of consideration of an application for grant of
leave to appeal against a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge.
Fact remains, the same was passed on an application filed by the
appellant, and therefore, it was necessary for the writ petitioner to
implead the appellant in the writ proceedings as party-respondent.
8. As the order dated 27.09.2021 was set aside by the learned Single
Judge, we are of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for
grant of leave to appeal and accordingly, the leave to appeal is granted.
9. I.A. No. 3 of 2022 is allowed.
10. On the prayer of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is
also taken up for consideration.
11. The submission of Mr. Shukla that order dated 27.09.2021, setting
aside the order dated 07.09.2021, which was in favour of the respondent/
writ petitioner, was passed in his absence, is not disputed by Mr. B.P.
Sharma.
12. It appears that with regard to demarcation of the land of the
petitioner, a report was submitted to Tehsildar, Korba on 10.03.2021. With
regard to demarcation proceedings, some objections were lodged which
resulted in passing of the order dated 07.09.2021 by the Tehsildar, Korba,
which was in favour of the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner.
13. By the order dated 27.09.2021, the order dated 07.09.2021 was set
aside. It is an admitted position that respondent No.1 / writ petitioner was
not heard while passing the order dated 27.09.2021.
14. The order dated 07.09.2021 could not have been set aside in
absence of the party, in whose favour the same was made and
accordingly, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated
27.09.2021 and had directed compliance of the order dated 07.09.2021.
15. But, we cannot lose sight of the fact that an application was filed by
the appellant in connection with the order dated 07.09.2021 and
therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified providing that
the application filed by the appellant based on which the order dated
27.09.2021 was passed, shall again be taken up for consideration and
appropriate order shall be passed by the Tehsildar, Korba after hearing
the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner.
16. It is also made clear that if any demarcation had taken place
pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the same will be
treated as non-est.
17. The writ appeal stands disposed of.
18. The Tehsildar, Korba will decide the application within a period of
six weeks from today.
19. The appellant and the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner will appear
before the Tehsildar, Korba on 20.07.2022 and thereafter, the Tehsildar,
Korba will regulate the proceedings, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
