High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1738/2020disposed off

Panna Lal Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-08-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1738 of 2020

1. Panna Lal Yadav, S/o Late Shri Punka Lal Yadav, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Mana Basti, Tahsil And District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Station House Officer, Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Gram Panchayat Through The Sarpanch, Mana Basti, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

For Respondents 2,4&5 :

Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 28.08.2020

1. The limited prayer that the petitioner makes is in-respect-of an order passed by the Respondent No. 3 dated 20.02.2018 Annexure P-11 inrespect-of alleged demolition of the property of the petitioner and the Gobar Gas Plant that was there.

2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 had already directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to conduct the

-2enquiry and to submit his/her report within seven days. However, till date there does not seem to have been any enquiry conducted or any report submitted.

3. At this juncture, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the matter can be disposed off, directing the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to comply with the directions given by the Chief Executive Officer ie., Respondent No. 3 on 20.02.2018.

4. Considering the submissions made by the counsel on either side, the writ petition stands disposed off, directing the respondent-State to ensure that the enquiry ordered by the Respondent No. 3 is conducted and an appropriate report is submitted to the Respondent No. 3 at the earliest, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

5. Let the State counsel instruct the Respondent No. 2-Collector for directing the Sub-Divisional Officer for compliance of the Respondent No. 3 order dated 20.02.2018 within the stipulated period.

6. The present writ petition, accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul