High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/603/2021disposed off

Rupanand Soi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-02-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 603 of 2021 Rupanand Soi S/o Shri Gourang Aged About 45 Years Caste Kolta R/o Village Matidarha, At Present Tappa Sevaiya, Revenue Circle Sankra, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Its Secretary, Department of Revenue Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur , Raipur , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Mahasamund , District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

4. Mu. Tejkumari W/o Dharamdev Kolta Resident of Village Matidarha, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

5. B.R. Sahu The Then Naib Tahsildar, Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

6. Neelambar Pradhan The Then Patwari Halka No. 45, Revenue Circle Sankra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

7. Madhusudan S/o Kishorlal Sahu Resident of Village Matidarha, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For the applicant : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Adv.

For the State : Mrs. Richa Shukla, Dy.Govt. Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board .02.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.4 has obtained compensation in respect of the land, which did not belong to him and actually it was a government land which is settled by the order of Collector dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-2). Therefore, the official respondents may be directed to conduct a thorough investigation and order for departmental enquiry against the erring officers.

2. It appears from the nature of complaint it is alleged that respondent no.4 by committing fraud has obtained the amount of compensation of a land of which he was not the owner, and the revenue officers have supported such act in furtherance of execution of the fraud. The nature of the allegation certainly would need a detailed evidence and investigation. Therefore, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not go in for a roving enquiry to find out the facts. The petitioner, if so aggrieved, may avail the remedy under the common law.

3. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o