Virendra Kumar Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Virendra Kumar Sahu vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 10, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1038753

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1038753
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: May 10, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Virendra Kumar Sahu

Advocate Shri. Sushil Mishra

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

2 writ petition no. 8721 of 2013 10.5.2013 shri sushil mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. heard on admission. petitioner claiming himself to be lessee of land admeasuring 30'x30' = 900 square feet of khasra no. 72, patwari halka no. 42/1 and complaining that a hutment raised, thereover, has been unauthorizedly razed by respondent no. 6 to 9 seeks direction to respondent nos. 1 to 5 to register offence against respondent nos. 6 to 9 and a direction to respondent nos. 6 to 9 to pay compensation of rs.40,000/. in respect of the claim regarding registration of offence, the petitioner since has the remedy under criminal procedure code, 1973 is at liberty to seek the same. [see aleque padamsee and others v. union of india and others (2007) 6 scc 171, sakiri vasu v. state of uttar pradesh and others (2008) 2 scc 409, divine retreat centre v. state of kerala (2008) 3 scc 542 and kunga nima lepcha v. state of sikkim (air 2010 sc 1671)].; whereas, in respect of claim for compensation against respondent nos. 6 to 9, they being private persons, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedy in civil court wherein besides establishing his title and ownership he has to prove that he has been wronged, by tendering cogent evidence. since no relief can be granted in this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the same is dismissed. no costs. (sanjay yadav) 2 judge vt

Full Judgment

2 Writ Petition No. 8721 Of 2013 10.5.2013 Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on admission.

Petitioner claiming himself to be lessee of land admeasuring 30'x30' = 900 square feet of Khasra No. 72, Patwari Halka No. 42/1 and complaining that a hutment raised, thereover, has been unauthorizedly razed by respondent No. 6 to 9 seeks direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to register offence against respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and a direction to respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/.

In respect of the claim regarding registration of offence, the petitioner since has the remedy under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is at liberty to seek the same. [See Aleque Padamsee and others v.

Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171, Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409, Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542 and Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (AIR 2010 SC 1671)].; whereas, in respect of claim for compensation against respondent Nos. 6 to 9, they being private persons, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court wherein besides establishing his title and ownership he has to prove that he has been wronged, by tendering cogent evidence.

Since no relief can be granted in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is dismissed. No costs.

(SANJAY YADAV) 2 JUDGE VT

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Virendra Kumar Sahu vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Land Acquisition