High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2233/2016dismissed

Netram v. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division

2016-09-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2233 of 2016 • Netram S/o Tijram (Mother-Gulbai) Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kudhari, Block & Tahsil-Malkharouda, Police Station Malkharouda, Civil & Revenue District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector, Janjagir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Divisional OfÏcer Sakti District-Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Tahsildar Malkharouda, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

5. Uttara Kumar S/o Sadhram Aged About 55 Years Village-Andi, Police Station & Tah. Malkharouda, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

6. Bharat Lal S/o Sadhram Aged About 60 Years Village-Andi, Police Station & Tah. Malkharouda, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

7. Prembai D/o Sadhram Aged About 53 Years Village Nandeli, Police Station Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

8. Setram S/o Tijram (Mother Gulbai) Aged About 48 Years R/o Village-Kudhari, Block & Tahsil-Malkharouda, Police StationMalkharouda District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. UNS Deo, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board

5/9/2016

1. Heard.

2. In a partition proceedings, the Tehsildar passed an order on 05.10.2015 without hearing the petitioner, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO (R ), wherein, an interim order was granted in petitioner's favour. Against the said interim order, respondent No.5 Uttara Kumar preferred a revision application before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which has been allowed by the impugned order and the matter has been remitted back to the Tehsildar.

3. It is argued that when the matter was pending before the SDO(R), the Commissioner should have remitted the matter to the SDO(R) rather than sending it back to the Tehsildar, where the petitioner is not a party.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the Additional Commissioner has directed the Tehsildar to decide the matter afresh, needless to say that all the parties concerned including the petitioner shall have right of hearing before the Tehsildar.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with observation that while deciding the matter finally, on its own merits, the Tehsildar shall also afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna