Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Nirmal Kumar Golchha – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shobha Kotadiya – Respondent
WPC No. 4009 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shobhit Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. Satish Gupta
Court emphasizes the necessity of expeditious disposal of appeals while maintaining unbiased judgment on merits.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges the legality of Tehsildar's order allowing a pathway from their land under Sections 132 & 133 of CGLRC. The petitioner asserts prior ownership and ongoing appeal after questioning the order's validity. The court urged the SDO to decide the pending appeal expediently, ensuring a fair hearing as of the ruling.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging tehsildar's pathway allowance (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. pending appeal against tehsildar's order (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court directions for expeditious appeal resolution (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's opinion remains neutral on case merits (Para 8) |
Order on Board
30/07/2025
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2025.08.01 +0530
02/07/2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Mungeli in Case No.A-13/2024- 25, whereby the application of Respondents No.1 & 2 for providing easementry pathway from the petitioner’s private land is allowed.
2. The brief facts of this case are projected by the petitioner are that the land in question is situated at Village Mungeli, Man-2, Patwari Halka No.19, RIC Mungeli Urban, Tehsil and District Mungeli, C.G. bearing Khasra No.562/7, area 0.0950 Hectares out of which 9x140 sq. feet land is the subject matter of this petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that petitioner and husband of Respondent No.1 & father of Respondent No.2 had purchased 0.63 acres of land Part of Khasra No.562 from Nandram and others in the year 1991 through a registered sale deed. Subsequently some of the aforesaid land was sold by the petitioner and one other and the remaining portion of land measuring 0.47 acres continued to be recorded in the name of the petitioner and Ashok Chand Jain bearing Khasra No562/2. Thereafter, the said land was partitioned and the names were mutated, however, Respondent No.2 in collusion with the other persons agreed to provide a pathway to the different landowner and filed an application under Section 132 & 133 CGLRC wherein the impugned order has been passed. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the said order dated 02/07/2025 the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 44 (1) CGLRC before the SDO(R) which is pending, therefore, the said authority may be directed to decide the same as early as possible.
4. Learned State counsel submits that they have no objection in deciding the appeal of the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.
6. On perusal of the documents I have found that the Tehsildar District Mungeli has passed the order under Section 132 & 133 of the CGLRC on 02/07/2025 against the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the SDO under Section 44 (1) of the CGLRC , which is still pending before the SDO.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pursue the matter before the SDO and the SDO is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 44 (1) of the CGLRC expeditiously after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to decide the case on its own merits. SD/-
