Ravi Kumar Yadav vs Naib Tahsildar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1287 Chatt

                                   Page 1 of 3

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                   Order Sheet
                                FA No. 15 of 2020
      Ravi Kumar Yadav, S/o Ramkhilawan Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
      Lalpur, Post Office- Baloda Bazar, Division- Bhatapara, District-
      Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (petitioner filed application for joining him as
      a party before concerned Court)
                                                                       ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
1.    Naib Tahsildar, Nipaniya, Tahsil Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara
      (C.G.)
2.    Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub Division, Bhatapara, District-
      Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
3.    Chief Executive Officer, Janpad           Panchayat,    Bhatapara,     District-
      Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
4.    Collector Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
5.    Dasru, S/o Jeevrakhan Yadav, Aged About 45 Years.
6.    Santosh, S/o Vishnu Yadav, Aged About 40 Years.
7.    Smt. Chandrika Bai, S/o Janau Yadav, Aged About 50 Years.
8.    Vishnu Yadav, S/o Ratiram Yadav.
9.    Bhuri Bai, S/o Balaram Yadav, Aged About 52 Years.
10.   Shrawan Kumar, S/o Vishnu Yadav, Aged About 24 Years.
      Respondents No. 5 to 10 are R/o Lalpur, Post Karhi Bazar, Lalpur, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

---- Respondents

11.03.2022 Mr. Vivek Tripathi, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1, 2 & 4.

Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for respondent No. 5 to 9. Ms. Dimple Dhruw, Naib Tahsildar, Nipania is present before this Court in pursuance of this Court's order dated 10.03.2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the present

appeal has been filed against the judgment decree and award dated 09.09.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by National Lok Adalat, Baloda- Bazar (First Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara) in Civil Suit H-04A/2014 (Dasru & others Vs. Naib Tahsildar & others). He would also pray for grant of right for movement of dead body from the disputed land.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 9 would vehemently object the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the instant first appeal is not liable to be admitted for hearing on the count that the appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desia Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & others reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671 has examined "aggrieved person" and has held that whose right has been adversely affected by any action or any order passed by the authority, he may be called as "aggrieved person" even if he was not party before the proceeding. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in subsequent judgment rendered in V.N. Krishna Murthy & another Vs. Ravikumar & others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 501 with regard to maintainability of the appeal filed under Sections 96 & 100 of the C.P.C. wherein question with regard to the aggrieved person was posed wherein, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has examined "aggrieved person" and has held that if anybody's right is adversely affected, he may be termed as aggrieved person, though he was not party to the earlier proceeding, on his strength, the appeal is maintainable.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 9 would further submit that an award has been passed under Order 21 (2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the appeal against the award passed by National Lok Adalat is not maintainable. The legal submission made by learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 9 can be examined at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Call for the record of the Court below as well as the record of National Lok Adalat.

Taking into consideration the allegation leveled by the respondents No. 5 to 9, it is directed that respondents No. 5 to 9 will not create any hindrance on movement of dead body which has to be moved from the suit land for cremation and if any door or hindrance has been created by them by any means, they will remove the same within three days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

List this case after three weeks.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun