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

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Anoop Waswani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPCR 295/2015



Advocates:
['RAVINDRA AGRAWAL', '', 'akash gupta', 'VIVEK SHRIVASTAVA', 'VINAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA', 'H S AHLUWALIA', 'Vinod kumar palia', 'RATNESH KUMAR AGRAWAL', 'A G', '', 'ALOK BAKSHI', 'ANIMESH VERMA', 'AMIT VERMA', 'AFROJ KHAN', 'ANURAG VERMA', 'SOUMYA RAI', 'VINOD DESHMUKH', 'SANJAY KUMAR NAMDEV', 'SHASHANK THAKUR', 'ABHISHEK THAKUR', 'DASHRATH PRAJAPATI', 'SANJAY PATELSWATI VERMAIshwari Ghritlahare']

Page 1 of 5

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPCR No. 295 of 2015

Anoop Waswani, S/o Late Amar Waswani, Aged About 35 Years, R/o

Inside Bhakta Kanwar Ram Gate, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur,

Civil & Revenue District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of

Home, Mantralaya Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)

2.

Superintendent of Police, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

3.

The Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur

(C.G.)

4.

Shri Q.A. Khan, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.)

5.

Shri Narendra Banjara, Additional Tahsildar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

6.

Smt. Sandhya Namdev, Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 21, R.I.

Circle Bilaspur, Tahsil- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

7.

Ratnesh Jaiswal, S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About

45 Years, R/o A-32, Vasundhra Nagar, Ring Road No. 2,

Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate.

For State/res. No. 1 to 3 :

Mr. Kapil Maini, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order On Board

08.09.2021

1.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for following relief:-

10.1

The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/

orders and to direct the Respondent No. 3 to register

the F.I.R. against the Respondent No. 4 to 7 for their

illegal act of criminal conspiracy, Public servant

disobeying the law with intent to caused injury to the

person, mischief, lurking house tresspass after

prepration for hurt, assault and wrongful restraint,

dishonestly breaking open the receptacle containing

property and also for forgery and cheating and to

investigate into the matter.

10.2

That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct an

enquiry to fix the liability of the erring officers

responsible for the illegal and inhumen act of

Page 2 of 5

demolishing the shop of the petitioner and depriving

him from his livelihood.

10.3

That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant suitable

compensation to the petitioner which this Hon'ble

Court deems fit and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

10.4

The Hon'ble Court further kindly be pleased to call for

the entire records of the case of the petitioner for kind

perusal.

10.5

Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,

may also be granted to the petitioner.”

2.

The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that in the year

1967-68, brother of the petitioner- Nandlal had taken an open plot

admeasuring 345 sq.ft. on rent from owner-Madan Mohan Mitra

situated at Khasra No. 316/34, Mohalla Kududand, Tahsil & District-

Bilaspur. With permission of the owner, the petitioner has

constructed a shop there on his own expenses and started hotel

business. On 21.02.1973, a suit for eviction and arrears of rent was

filed by owner- Madan Mohan Mitra against brother of the

petitioner- Nandlal, which was partly decreed in favour of the

plaintiff- Madan Mohan Mitra and only arrears of rent part has been

decreed in favour of the landlord and rest of the claim i.e. eviction

part has been dismissed by the learned First Civil Judge Class-II,

Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1972. The owner of the land

preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the trial Court which

clearly establishes that the petitioner was remained in possession

of the rented plot.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the year

1989-90, family dispute between family members of the petitioner,

which came into litigation and ultimately the litigation was ended by

compromise between the parties. In the year 1992, Civil Suit No.

39-A/1992 was filed by one Prem Chandra who was occupant of

shop of Bus Stand Bilaspur against the petitioner for permanent

injunc

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top