High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1771/2015disposed off

Rajendra Prasad Bhagat v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-10-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1771 of 2015

1. Rajendra Prasad Bhagat S/o Shri Ruplal Bhagat, Aged About 70 Years R/o Majhapara, Near Cooperative Bank Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, Kanker, District - Kanker (Chhattisgarh).

3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub Division Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Tahsildar, Tahsil And District Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

6. Saganram Mandavi, S/o Lachchhu Ram To The Petitioner, R/o Govindpur Near Shitla Mandir, Kanker, Tahsil And District Kanker (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Petitioner.

: Shri Praveen Das, Advocate.

For Respondent/State.

: Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer on advance copy.

Order On Board 05/10/2015 Heard.

(1) Grievance of the petitioner is that revenue proceeding under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code was drawn by the Tahsildar and interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No. 6, which is still operative. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the interim order is being violated, and even though it is brought to the notice of Tahsildar, Tahsildar has not taken appropriate steps. (2) If there is an interim order in favour of the petitioner and there is an allegation of violation against respondent No. 6, the Tahsildar should first examine this allegation and if it is found to be correct, proper action is required to be taken by the Tahsildar after verifying

allegation violation of the interim order on the next date of hearing after affording due opportunity to the petitioner & respondent No. 6. Thereafter, if petitioner's grievance is not redressed, he will be liberty to take appropriate remedy available to him under the relevant provisions of law.

(2) Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge amita