← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/1761/2003dismissed

Hiraram And ORS. v. Shivendra @ Shivbind And ORS.

2017-10-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No.1761 of 2003

1. Hiraram son of Tularam aged about 19 years, Caste Sahu, Occupation Agriculturist, Resident of Village Nawagaonkala, Thana Khamhariya

2. Tularam son of Manglu, aged about 45 years, Occupation Agriculturist, Resident of Village Nawagaonkala, Thana Khamriya, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (M.P.) Now Chhattisgarh ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Shivendra @ Shivbindal son of Laxmi Bindal, aged about 50 years, Kastkar and Sahukar, Resident of Sadar Bazaar, Ward No.5 Khamriya, Thana-Khamriya, Tahsil Saja, Distt. Durg (CG)

2. Anil Thakur s/o Kejusingh Thakur, aged about 50 years, Kastkar, resident of village Gantapara, Thana Khamriya, Tahsil Saja, Distt. Durg (CG)

3. Madanlal s/o Babulal Satnami, aged about 42 years, Kastakar, resident of Village Tharakpur, Thana Khamriya, Tahsil Saja, Distt.Durg (CG)

4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Collector Durg, Collectorate Building, G.E. Road, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr.H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mrs.Itu Rani Mukharjee, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :

Ms Sharmila Shinghai, Advocate For Respondent No.4 :

Mr.Aditya Sharma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 09/10/2017 1.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the order dated 20.2.2003 rejecting the application for review of the order dated 3.7.2002.

2.

Learned Senior Counsel along with learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would support the impugned order.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the trial Court is justified in holding that there is no error apparent on the face of record. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5.

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/-