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

Smt. Champa Devi Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC 5263/2021



Advocates:
['MANOJ PARANJPE', '', 'Anurag Singh', 'Prasoon Agrawal', 'Bharat Sharma', 'ANSHUL TIWARI', 'SHUBHANK TIWARI', 'VIVEK MISHRA', 'VAISHALI MAHILONG', 'A G', '', 'RAMESH KUMAR NAYAK']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (C) No. 5263 of 2021

Smt. Champa Devi Chandra W/o Late Puranlal Chandra, Aged About

45 Years, Sarpanch, R/o Gram Panchayat Jetha, Janpad Panchayat

Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin

Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal

Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Janjgir Champa

Chhattisgarh.

5. Tehsildar Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

6. Ganesh Ram Chandra S/o Bhola Ram Chandra, Aged About 49

Years, R/o Village Jetha, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate

For State

:

Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate

For Respondent no.6

:

Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board

17.12.2021

1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P-1 dated 30.11.2021 passed by

the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, in Panchayat Case

No. 1A-89/2021/22, the present writ petition has been filed. Vide the

impugned order, the Additional Commissioner, exercising the powers

2

under Section 91 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993

read with Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and

Revision) Rules, 1995 allowed the appeal preferred by the

respondent no.6 and thereby the petitioner was declared disqualified

to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jetha, Tahsil Sakti,

District Janjgir-Champa. The Additional Commissioner in the process

has set aside the order of the Collector under Section 36(3) of the

Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 dated 06.09.2021.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in the instant case

was declared the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jetha, Tahsil

Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in the election that was convened in

2019-20. Subsequently, respondent no.6 is said to have made a

complaint against the petitioner before the Tahsildar under Section

248 of the Land Revenue Code alleging the illegal encroachment of

government land by the husband of petitioner. The Tahsildar initially

passed an order on 12.02.2021 allowing the complaint filed by

respondent no.6. The order of Tahsildar dated 12.02.2021 was

subjected to challenge by petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue). The SDO (Revenue) vide order dated 25.08.2021

Annexure P-3 found that the order of Tahsildar was not in accordance

with law inasmuch as it was passed without recording of evidence of

the petitioner who was the respondent before the Tahsildar and that

the spot inspection which was conducted also was without taking into

confidence the petitioner. The SDO for the given reasons directed

the Tehsildar to get a fresh inquiry conducted after giving a fair and

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. This order

dated 25.08.2021 was not challenged by either side before any higher

3

authorities. Thus, the same has attained finality.

3. The fresh inquiry, spot inspection and the subsequent developments

have not transpired thereafter. Meanwhile, there was a proceeding

under Section 36 (3) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam drawn by the

District Collector at the behest of the respondent no.6 on the ground

of there being an illegal encroachment made by the petitioner and her

husband. The district Collector vide its order dated 06.09.2021

Annexure P-6 rejected the proceeding on the ground that the

question of illegal encroachment has not been established as it is still

pending consideration before the Tehsildar. The order of the district

Collector was subsequently again put to challenge before the

Additional

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