High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/467/2018disposed off

Kamal Narayan Mishra v. The State Of Chattisgarh

2019-02-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 467 of 2018

1. Kamal Narayan Mishra S/o Virendra Kumar Mishra Aged About 48 Years

2. Surendra Kumar Mishra S/o Shiv Kumar Mishra Aged About 78 Years

3. Shiv Shankar Mishra S/o Shiv Kumar Mishra Aged About 65 Years All are R/o Village Khapri (Louda), Tahsil Pathariya, DistrictMungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Chattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, Mungeli District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

4. Sub- Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

5. Tahsildar Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pathariya, DistrictMungeli, Chhattisgarh

7. Executive Engineer, (Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna) Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

8. Sarpanch Village Panchayat Louda, Janpad Panchayat Pathariya, District Mungeli (CG)

9. Up- Sarpanch Village Panchayat, Louda, Janpad Panchayat, Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

10.Village Panchayat Louda, Through Secretary, Village Panchayat Louda, Janpad Panchayat Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

For Petitioners Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Government Advocate Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 4/2/2019

1. Heard.

2. The writ petition was preferred raising a grievance that the respondents are constructing a road on the petitioners' land without lawfully acquiring the same.

3. Under the Court's order, a demarcation was carried out, in which, it has been found that the respondents are not raising any construction on the petitioners' land.

4. Since the Government contends that no construction is made on the petitioners' land, the writ petition need not be adjudicated any further.

5. However,if the petitioners are aggrieved by the demarcation report, they would be at liberty to challenge the same before the jurisdictional Revenue Court or Civil Court, as the case may be, and seek the relief for which, they are otherwise entitled in law.

6. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna