Chattisgarh High Court
Santaru Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 June, 2025
1
SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Digitally signed
by SUNITA 2025:CGHC:22547
GOSWAMI
Date: 2025.06.06
11:35:01 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5849 of 2024
1 - Santaru Kashyap S/o Shri Sarahu Kashyap Aged About 55 Years Caste -
Kurmi, R/o Village - Salkhan, Tahsil Shivarinarayan, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector / Additional Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Tahsildar Shivarinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
5 - Dhelaram S/o Late Rameshar Kashyap Caste - Kurmi, R/o Village -
Salkhan, Tahsil Shivarinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
For Petitioner :Shri P.M. Shriwas, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 4/State :Ms. Upsana Mehta, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No. 5 :Shri Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate
appears on behalf of Shri Hemant
Kesharwani, Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Order On Board
05.06.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (C) under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-1)
passed by respondent No.2/Additional Collector, Janjgir Champa in Revision
Case No.202302062700374/0636/RXM/A-68/2023-24, whereby the case of
the petitioner has been dismissed while affirming the order of Sub Divisional
Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, dated 04/02/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the encroachment on
the land in question, i.e. Khasra No. 3365/2, area 0.04 acre of govt. land,
situated at village Salkhan, Tahsil Shivarinarayan, District Janjgir Champa,
has already been removed by the petitioner and the paddy kept on the said
land has also been removed, therefore, he does not want to pursue this
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised no objection to the
contention made by the counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the above contention made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, it appears that no grievance survives in the petition.
5. The petition is, accordingly, stands disposed of.
6. I.A.No.2/2025 for urgent hearing and I.A.No.3/2025 for hearing the
case during Summer Vacation stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
sunita
3