← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCR/29/2017disposed off

Mohamad Nashad Ahmed v. Union Of India

2018-06-29Hon'Ble The Chief Justice2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR No. 68 of 2017 Murli Manohar Dewangan S/o Ramlal Dewangan, Aged About 48 Years R/o Industrial Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Chief Manager South East Central Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata West Bengal

2. Estate Officer, South East Central Railway Manager Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents CR No. 29 of 2017 Mohamad Nashad Ahmed S/o Late Jahur Ahmed Aged About 46 Years R/o Industrial Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Chief Manager, South East Central Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata West Bengal

2. Estate Officer, South East Central Railway Manager Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents CR No. 69 of 2017 Amit Kashyap S/o Late Shri Arun Kashyap, Aged About 51 Years R/o Industrial Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Chief Manager South East Central Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata West Bengal

2. Estate Officer, South East Central Railway Manager Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

CR No. 71 of 2017 Chinta Singh Thakur Wrongly Mentioned As Chintaram Thakur In The Order Impugned Since Dead Through Son Girdhari Singh Thakur, Aged About 49 Years, S/o Late Chinta Singh Thakur R/o Industrial Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Chief Manager South East Central Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata West Bengal

2. Estate Officer, South East Central Railway Manager Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Rajeev Bharat, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/06/2018 1.

The issue raised in these revisions are substantially the same as those which were dealt with in Civil Revision No.72 of 2017. 2.

Once the land (demarcation report by the Revenue in relation to the Khasra No.254/1) is shown to be with the Railways, it makes no difference whether it is recorded as Abadi land since such plea does not lie at the hands of the person as individual capacity against the Railways.

3.

Following the said order dated 27.06.2018 in Civil Revision No.72 of 2017, these revisions are dismissed.

Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) CHIEF JUSTICE Anu