Chattisgarh High Court
Luman Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 338 of 2022
Luman Bai, Wife of Budhkar Netam, aged about 40 years, R/o Village
Mohla, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
4. Tahsildar, Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Meena Shastri, Additional Advocate
General.
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
18.07.2022
Heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 14.06.2022 passed
in Writ Petition (C) No. 2545 of 2022. By the said order, a number of
analogous writ petitions were disposed of.
3. While praying for withdrawal of the writ appeal with liberty to file
review application before the learned Single Judge, he has drawn our
attention to an order dated 06.07.2022 passed by this Court in Writ
Appeal No. 334 of 2022. In the said order, at paragraphs 3 to 10, this
Court noted as follows:
"3. Perusal of the order goes to show that on the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
therein that order, as was passed in WP(C) No. 3252 of
2016 dated 23.12.2016, may be passed in their petitions,
the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions
including the writ petition out of which this appeal arises in
terms of order dated 23.12.2016 passed in WP(C) No.
3252 of 2016.
4. Evidently, the order is passed on the submission of
the appellant.
5. The order dated 23.12.2016, as quoted by the
learned Single Judge, reads as follows:
"4. Nothing has been placed on record to substantiate
the plea that the land is not revenue paying land but
belongs to the Nagar Panchayat. If the land is revenue
land which has been encroached by the petitioner, the
Tahsildar has jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under
Section 248 of the Code, 1959.
5. The petitioner has not demonstrated about his right,
title or interest over the property except challenging
the authority of the Tahsildar. Considering the fact that
the petitioner is not entitled to occupy land, indulgence
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
warranted. Consequently, the writ is dismissed,
however, the petitioner is allowed on month's time to
make alternative arrangement. The respondents shall
allow the petitioner to remain in occupation for one
month within which time the petitioner shall remove
the encroachment, failing which the respondents may
execute the order on or after 31.01.2017."
6. Operative portion of the order impugned reads as
follows:
"7. Respondents are directed to ensure that the
Petitioners would not be forcefully evicted for a period
of 30 days' time starting from today. Meanwhile, the
Petitioners shall ensure removal of their encroachment
from the place which is occupied by them as of now
and make alternative arrangement for themselves,
failing which the Respondents shall have liberty to get
the eviction warrant executed beyond the period of
31.07.2022. Petitioners meanwhile would also be at
liberty to approach the State Authorities seeking for
alternative accommodation/arrangement in the
capacity of landless/homeless person, which, if made
by the Petitioners, shall be considered on priority basis
by the Authorities."
7. Though not pleaded in the appeal, Mr. Chetan Kumar
submits that no authority was given to the counsel by the
appellant to make such concession when the appellant had
questioned the legality of the order dated 19.05.2022
passed by the Tahsildar directing eviction of the appellant.
8. At this juncture, Mr. Chetan Kumar submits that he
may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file
review application before the learned Single Judge.
9. Prayer is not opposed by Ms. Shastri.
10. On due consideration, we permit the appellant to
withdraw the appeal with liberty, as prayed for."
5. The writ appeal stands disposed of on withdrawal with liberty to
file review application, as prayed for.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
