Jagdish Dhruw v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 40 of 2020 Jagdish Dhruw S/o. Late Manglu Dhruw Aged About 52 Years R/o VillageHafa, Sakri, Tehsil- Takhatpur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Circle - Bilaspur, Police Station And TehsilBilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4. Tehsildar Revenue Circle-Bilaspur, P.S. And Tehsil- Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur Chhattisgarh

5. Umesh Kumar Murarka S/o. Bajrang Prasad Murarka Aged About 54 Years R/o Murarka Bhawan, Near Mahima Complex Behind Vaipar Vihar, Bilaspur Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

6. Dinesh Kumar Murarka S/o. Vijay Murarka Aged About 48 Years R/o. Near Animal Hospital, City Kotwali, In Front Of Kali Mandir, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

7. A. Jaiswal Aged About 48, R/o C-301, Golden Colony Shri Ram Nagar, Near Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Sunil Lakra & Mr. Ajay Lakra, Advocates For State :

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17/01/2020

1. Though the writ petition has been filed seeking relief for appropriate direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over Khasra No.448 & Khasra No.465 of

Village Uslapur, Revenue Circle Bilaspur, Police Station-Bilaspur and Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur.

2. The limited prayer during the course of hearing made by the learned Senior Advocate is that the grievance of the petitioner would perhaps get redressed if appropriate direction is given to the respondent No.3 to take a decision on the proceeding under Section 170 (B) which has been initiated by respondent No.3 as is evident from Annexure P2, notice issued by the office of respondent No.3, where the case has been registered as Case No.9-A-70-08-09, Manglu Gond Vs. Dinesh Murarka.

3. Learned Senior counsel submits that petitioner had moved an application under Section 170(B) before respondent No.2 as early as on 25.04.2009, till date no progress has been made in the said proceedings.

4. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, taking note of the directions of similar nature issued by the Division Bench of this Court in WPPIL 94/2019 disposed of on 12.12.2019, the present writ petition in the opinion of this Court also can be disposed of directing respondent No.3 to proceed further and decide the matter at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondent No.3 so far as order passed by this Court is concerned.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit