Smt. Lakheshwari Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT

OF CHHATTIseARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETCTION (C) N0.

)5 / /2015 PETETIONER /Smt. Lakheshwari Sahu W/o. 6end Ram Sahu, aged about :

35 years, R/o.

\^ l^ l< ss^)• -^^•^is^-^-T"::-:

V^9rted)sl°^-^"'^ ^.....--•^'\ Vittage : Amera, Block : Palari, Tahsit ;

Palan', Revenue and Civil District ;

Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.6.).

VERSUS

/3rf State of Chhattisgarh, Through :

RESPONDENTS The Secretary, Revenue Department Mantralaya, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.6.).

2] The Collector, Baloda Bazar, District : Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.6.).

,3] The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Baloda Bazar, District :

Raipur (C.6.).

4] Gajju Ram S/o. Ajit Ram Satnami, aged about : 46 years, R/o. Village :

Amera, Block : Palari, Tahsil ; Palari, Revenueand Civil Distnct :

Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.).

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTLCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA .

'

'--ia HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WPrc)No.151 of2015 •PETITIONER Smt.LakheshwariSahu -VersusRESPONDENTS:

State of Chhattisgarh & others

Present

Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. %KW, iN' ?; ORAL ORDER (23-2-2015)

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking direction to the respondent authorities to decide her representation preferred for taking action against respondent No.4, who has encroached the Government land. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 had earlier preferred civil Suit N6.143A/09 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-1, Baloda Bazar seeking deelaration of his ownership on the Government land bearing Khasra No.1;270/1,area 0.898 hectares at village Amera, Rl Circle Palari, District Raipur;

The said suit was dismissed on 28.9.2011 and thereafter FirstAppeal No;49-/V2013 has also been dismissed by the 2nd ADJ, Baloda Bazar on 17.6.2013.

Despite the said judgment, the respondents have not taken any action to remove the encroachment made by respondent No.4.

3. Considering the entire fact situation of the case, it is directed that if the petitioner prefers fresh representation before respondent No.3 for redressal of her grievance for removal of encroachment made by respondent No.4, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of representation.

4. With the direction aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Barve Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge _lfc"--.