High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/394/2020disposed off

Rakesh Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-01-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 394 of 2020 Rakesh Agrawal S/o Mahendra Agrawal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Jashpur Road Pathalgaon, Tahsil And Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner (Revenue), Surguja Division Surguja, Chhattisgarh

3. Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathalgaon, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

5. Tahsildar, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

6. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate For State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 29.01.2020

1. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed a writ petition i.e. WPC No. 995/2015 for the same

relief. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition had directed the Collector, District Jashpur for deciding the matter within 3 months and till the matter is finally decided, there was an interim protection in favour of the petitioner of maintaining status quo as it was existed on 11.06.2015.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for grant of permanent lease till date has not been finalized.

3. Given the fact that the application has not been finalized and that there is already a direction by the High Court vide order dated 19.01.2016 in WPC 995/2015, this Court is of the opinion that a second writ of the same nature need not be issued particularly when there is an interim order still operating in favour of the petitioner till the Collector passes an order on the application for grant of permanent lease.

4. In view of the same, the writ petition stands disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Court in the event need so arises. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai