High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/802/2020disposed off

Sandeep Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-03-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 802 of 2020 Sandeep Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramesh Prasad Mishra, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Turkapara Place Road Raigarh, Civil And Revenue DistrictRaigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3. Nazul Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

4. Amitabh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramesh Prasad Mishra, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Turkapara Place Road Raigarh, Civil And Revenue DistrictRaigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State :

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 03.03.2020

1. The limited relief that the petitioner has sought in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondent no.3 to decide the Revenue Case No. 01/2011-12 at the earliest.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the respondent no.3 in the year 2012 which

has been registered as Revenue Case No. 01/2011-12 and since then the matter is pending consideration. He further submits that there is also an order of status quo granted by the respondent no.3 and in violation of the same, the respondent no.4 is further carrying out construction on the disputed property without any proper sanction and approval from the competent authorities under law.

3. To the limited relief sought for, the State counsel does not have any objection.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent no.3 to proceed further with the matter and decide the same at the earliest preferably within a period of 6 months from the next date of hearing before the respondent no.3.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned shall decide the matter purely in accordance with law.

Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai