SUNDER LAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of (i) the memo No. 385 of 2002 dated 21.03.2002 (Annexure P/8) whereby the sanction granted by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 04.07.2001 (Annexure P/7), to construct super structure over the plot of the petitioner was suspended, (ii) order dated 25.09.2002 (Annexure P/9) passed by the respondent No. 2 case No. 47/B/121 year 2001-02, as the being without jurisdiction and non-est in the eyes of law, (iii) notice dated 27.01.2002 (Annexure P/11) issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been asked to remove the structure situated over the plot in dispute, and further (iv) a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from interfering with the lawful possession of the petitioner.

(2.) THE original petitioner, Kamta Prasad Arya, died on 06.01.2008, during pendency of this petition, thus, by order dated 08.09.2008, his legal representative, i.e. Sundar Lal Sahu, was brought on record.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Sao, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner had encroached upon the passage of the Nazul land and constructed a Kuccha shop over it and obtained building permission suppressing material fact. When Smt. Anisha Begum submitted a document before the respondent No. 3, upon which an enquiry was made and it was found that the petitioner had encroached upon the passage. The Tahsildar has not declared the Anisha Begum as title holder of the property in question but, vide its order dated 25.09.2002 (Annexure P/9) had only stated that it appears that Anisha Begum was the title holder. Shri Sao, would next submit that the petitioner has already preferred a civil suit before the Court of XIth Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, being Civil Suit No. 211-A/2002, against Anisha Begum for declaration of title. The petitioner was never removed from any portion of the structure, in fact, the petitioner himself removed the Kuccha construction in order to raise a Pucca construction after getting permission from the respondent No. 3.