Pradeep Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3222 of 2020 • Pradeep Kumar S/o Late Madan Lal Khandelwal Aged About 56 Years R/o Sarsiva Police Station Sarsiva, Sub- Tahsil Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District Baloda Bazar Bhattapara, Chhattisgarh

2. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Bilaigarh District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

3. The Tahsildar, Bilaigarh District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

4. Prathmik Krishi Shakh Shahkari Samiti Maryadit Sarsiva (Collection Centre No. 1457) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Amrito Das, Addl. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 05/01/20

1. Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has land of different khasra numbers situated at Village Sarsiva which is registered with the respondent No.4 Prathmik Krishi Shakh Shahkari Samiti Maryadit since 2017 but in the recent year it is not being reflected in the account of the petitioner because of which the petitioner is unable to sale the paddy to respondent No.4 against the land situated at village Sarsiva.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner used to sale the paddy since 2017 which would be reflected from the various receipts and though one land of a village is included but land situated at village Sarsiva is missing. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a representation to the Collector Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara that may be directed to be decided in accordance with law.

4. Considering the issue involved and the documents placed before this Court, it appears that the petitioner was allowed to sale the paddy in respect of the land situated at Village Sarsiva on the earlier occasion. Since it is for the recent year it is been stated that the said land do not reflect in the registration, this issue can be resolved factually by the concerned revenue authorities. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner which is made to the Collector Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara if is decided, it may resolve the issue. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the Collector Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara shall decide the representation of the petitioner within a further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/Sd/-- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu