Mohammad Attaulla vs Sarju Ram Gupta
2022 Latest Caselaw 1313 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 88 of 2022
1.    Mohammad Attaulla S/o Hasnath Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
      Sanawal, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj,
      Chhattisgarh.
2.    Nand Lal Singh Ramautar Aged About 40 Years Village Sanawal,
      Polixe Station Sanawal Tahsil Ramchandrapur District Balrampur-
      Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ---- Appellants
                                 Versus
1.    Sarju Ram Gupta S/o Shri Hariyar Sao Aged About 40 Years R/o
      Village Sanawal, Police Station Sanawal, Tahsil Ramchandrapur,
      District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
2.    Parsu Ram Gupta S/o Shri Hariyar Sao Aged About 38 Years R/o
      Village Sanawal, Police Station Sanawal, Tahsil Ramchandrapur,
      District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
3.    State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
      Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh.
4.    The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja
      Chhattisgarh.
5.    The Collector Balrampur           Ramanujganj    District   Balrampur
      Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
6.    Tahsildar    Ramchandrapur,        District   Balrampur-Ramanujganj
      Chhattisgarh
7.    The Revenue Inspector Revenue Village Sanawal, P.H. No. 4, Tahsil
      And Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
      Chhattisgarh
8.    The Station House Officer Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur
      - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
9.    Aman Keshri S/o Late Nandlal Aged About 34 Years R/o Kameshwar
      Nagar, Tahsil And Police Station Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
10.   Smt. Sarla Devi W/o Late Nandlal Keshri Aged About 52 Years R/o
      Kameshwar Nagar, Tahsil And Police Station Ramanujganj
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Anil Tawadkar, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ajay Barik, Advocate For Respondent No.3 to 8 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

14.03.2022

Heard Mr. Anil Tawadkar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also

heard Mr. Ajay Barik, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2

as well as Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for

respondent Nos. 3 to 8.

2. There are two private respondents, being respondent Nos. 9 and 10,

who were respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the writ petition.

3. In view of the order that is proposed to be passed, we are of the

considered opinion that notice to the aforesaid respondent Nos. 9 and 10 is

not required to be sent.

4. The appeal is directed against an order dated 04.01.2022 passed by

the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5481 of 2021, whereby the writ

petition was disposed of in the following terms :

"8. The writ petition therefore at this juncture stands

disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to ensure

that the appeal is decided at the earliest. Meanwhile,

let status quo in respect of the possession of the land

as it exists today be maintained by the parties to the

dispute till the appeal is finally decided. Meanwhile, if

at all the demarcation proceeding in terms of the

application moved by the respondents 7 & 8 is

processed, the same can be carried out without

creating any further right in favour of any person

pending the appeal before the Commissioner."

5. A perusal of the order, more particularly paragraph 5, would go to

show that a prayer was made to the Commissioner, Surguja Division,

Ambikapur for directing the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the

appeal, but the Commissioner did not pass such order by failing to

appreciate that the writ petitioners were in a possession of the land in

question.

6. Mr. Tawadkar submits that no notice was issued to the appellants

herein before the order of status quo was passed and therefore, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of

principles of natural justice.

7. Mr. Barik very fairly submits that the order of learned Single Judge

was passed without notice to the appellants herein.

8. In Johra and Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, reported in

(2019) 2 SCC 324, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no order

prejudicial to the interest of the party can be passed without hearing such a

party.

9. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the

order of the learned Single Judge.

10. The appeal is allowed. The writ petition shall be listed before the

learned Single Judge on 24.03.2022.

                         Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                       (Gautam Chourdiya)
                     Chief Justice                                Judge
Chandra