SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SUNIL AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/5137/2024



##PAGE1##

1

NAFR

VISHAKHA

BEOHAR

Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

signed by

VISHAKHA

BEOHAR

WPC No. 5137 of 2024

1 - Sunil Agrawal S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aged About 50 Years

R/o Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, Tahsil - Ambikapur, District Surguja

(C.G.),..(Objector Before Resp. No. 01)

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Revenue And Disaster Management, New Mantralaya Nawa Raipur,

Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Baijnath Keshari S/o Shri Ramlakhan Keshari Aged About 47 Years

Caste - Kesharwani, R/o Rest House Road, Ramanujganj, District

Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.),...(Applicant Before Resp. No. 01)

3 - Gopal Prasad Shrivastava S/o Late Kuldeep Sahai Aged About 68

Years Caste - Kayasth, R/o Ward No. 06, Ramanujganj, District

Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.),..(Non-Applicant No. 01 Before Resp.

No. 01)

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 5938 of 2024

##PAGE2##

2

1 - Ramchandra Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Gupta, Aged

About 62 Years R/o Ramanujganj, Tahsil-Ramanujganj, District-

Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ----(Objector Before Resp No.1)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of

Revenue And Disaster Management, New Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur,

Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Baijnath Keshari S/o Shri Ramlakhan Keshari, Aged About 47 Years

Caste-Kesharwani, R/o Rest House Road, Ramanujganj, District-

Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) -----(Applicant Before Resp No.1)

3 - Gopal Prasad Shrivastava S/o Late Kuldeep Sahai, Aged About 68

Years Caste-Kayasth, R/o Ward No. 06, Ramanujganj, District-

Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ------(Non-Applicant No.1 Before Resp

No.01)

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioners :- Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate

For State :- Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A.

For Respondents No. 2 & 3 :- Mr. K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate

appears along with Mr. Rohan Patnaik, Advocate

on behalf of Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

24.04.2026

1. As the impugned order in the present petition is identical and

arises out of the same proceedings, the present petitions are

being decided by this common order.

##PAGE3##

3

2. By way of these petitions, the petitioner has called in question the

legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 09.10.2024

passed by Respondent No.1, whereby the application preferred

by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 for

impleadment has been rejected.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that Respondent No.3

was originally granted patta of land bearing Khasra No. 78/4, area

4.047 hectares, situated at Ramanujganj. Thereafter, in

compliance with the order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the

Additional Commissioner, portions of the said land were sold to

various purchasers including the present petitioner through a

registered sale deed dated 25.06.2012. Subsequently,

Respondent No.2 challenged the revenue proceedings and

carried the matter in appeal and thereafter in revision before the

competent authorities. The revision proceedings ultimately came

to be filed before Respondent No.1. According to the petitioners,

he being a purchaser of the disputed land is a necessary and

proper party to the said proceedings. However, he was not

impleaded at earlier stages and came to know about the pending

revision only subsequently, whereupon he filed an application

under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment. The said

application has been rejected by the impugned order dated

09.10.2024, hence these petitions.

4. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-

##PAGE4##

4

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the entire records pertaining

to the case of the present Petitioner from the

Respondent authorities concerned for kind

perusal.

10.2 That

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top