High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/911/2020dismissed

Putar Bai v. Shatrughan

2020-03-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 911 of 2020 Putar Bai W/o Amoldas Satnami, Aged About 41 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Karhi, P.O. Jewra, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Shatrughan S/o Gokul Satnami, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Karhi, P.O. Jewra, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

2. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

5. Tahsildar, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State :

Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13/03/2020

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief: "10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and also be pleased to allow the petition and directed the Tehsildar i.e. respondent No.5 to decide the application of the petitioner filed under Section 178 of the CGLRC, 1959 of Fard Batwara in accordance with law as well as the order passed by the first appellate Court."

2. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner for the same relief had already filed a writ petition earlier i.e. WPC No. 1754/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of on 03.07.2018. The petitioner subsequently had also filed a couple of contempt petitions for the noncompliance of the said order and the High Court had disposed of the writ petition as well as the contempt petitions subsequently also.

3. Given the fact that there is already an order in favour of the petitioner and there is already certain directions issued to the respondents by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the second writ petition for the same relief and directions to the same respondents would not be maintainable and the writ petition for the same reason stands rejected, reserving the right of the petitioner to avail other remedies available to her.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved