Chitra Prakash v. Om Prakash

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(227) No. 946 of 2017

1. Chitra Prakash, Son Of Late Shatdhanu, Aged About 48 Years, Caste Aghariya, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Village & Post Navrangpur, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

2. Sakuntala, D/o. Late Satdhanu Kumar, Aged About 56 Years, Caste Aghariya, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Village & Post Navrangpur, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

3. Muktida, Son Of Late Satdhanu Kumar, Aged About 52 Years, Caste Aghariya, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Village & Post Navrangpur, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

4. Vimla, Wd/o. Late Satdhanu Kumar, Aged About 75 Years, Caste Aghariya, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Village & Post Navrangpur, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Om Prakash, Son Of Late Shri Shatdhanu, Caste Aghariya, Aged About 51 Years, Occupation Agriculturist, Resident Of Village Navrangpur, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

2. Yashoda Nayak, W/o. Late Shri Shatdhanu, Aged About 46 Years, Caste Aghariya, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Village & Post Navrangpur, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

3. Additional Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :

Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate For State :

Mr. S.K.Mishra, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 16.01.2018 Heard 1.

The instant petition is to decide the revision, which is preferred by the respondent Om Prakash and pending before the Additional Collector, Raigarh. The certified copy which is filed wherein the case is numbered as 71/2016-17 of Category A-27. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the interim order of partition, the revision was preferred before the Collector and since the revision was preferred before the Collector

on 26.05.2017 here in this petition only limited prayer is that the Collector may be directed to decide the same within time. 3.

Perused the documents. Considering the limited prayer made, the Additional Collector, Raigarh, before whom the case No.71/201617 is pending is directed to decide the same within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok