Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Avinash Kumar Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Avinash Kumar Jaiswal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 05, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1052798

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Avinash Kumar Jaiswal

Advocate Shri. Satish Shrivastava

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

w.p. no. 3011 of 2013 5.3.2013 shri satish shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. heard. petitioner claiming himself to be a social worker has filed this petition seeking directions: (a) to competent authority under madhya pradesh gram panchayat (registration of colonizers. terms and conditions) rules, 1999 to stringent action under section 61 d and section 61 f of madhya pradesh panchayat raj avam gram swaraj adhiniyam 1993 and to adopt measures prescribed under sub­section (5) of section 172 of madhya pradesh land revenue code, 1959 and further direct them to lodge first information report against respondent no. 3 and to recover all dues towards government revenue. (b) to restrain respondent no. 3 from colonizing and selling constructed houses in neelkanth colony, village pranmoti, narsinghpur road, chhindwara and prevent him from getting the land diverted for the purpose of colony. that, in view of the certificate dated 18.12.2012 issued by sub­divisional officer and prescribed authority (revenue) chhindwara, under madhya pradesh gram panchayat (registration of colonizers, terms and conditions) rules, 1999 in favour of the respondent no. 3, mandamus as sought for cannot be issued. the petitioner, however, is at liberty to take action in accordance with law either against the issuance of certificate or if any breach of terms and conditions stipulated in the certificate is committed by the certificate holder. petition is finally disposed of in above terms. (sanjay yadav) judge vivek tripathi

Full Judgment

W.P. No. 3011 Of 2013 5.3.2013 Shri Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard.

Petitioner claiming himself to be a Social Worker has filed this petition seeking directions: (a) to competent authority under Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Registration of ColonizeRs. Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1999 to stringent action under Section 61 D and Section 61 F of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 and to adopt measures prescribed under sub­section (5) of Section 172 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and further direct them to lodge first information report against respondent No. 3 and to recover all dues towards government revenue.

(b) to restrain respondent No. 3 from colonizing and selling constructed houses in Neelkanth Colony, Village Pranmoti, Narsinghpur Road, Chhindwara and prevent him from getting the land diverted for the purpose of colony.

That, in view of the certificate dated 18.12.2012 issued by Sub­Divisional Officer and Prescribed Authority (Revenue) Chhindwara, under Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Registration of Colonizers, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1999 in favour of the respondent No. 3, mandamus as sought for cannot be issued. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to take action in accordance with law either against the issuance of certificate or if any breach of terms and conditions stipulated in the certificate is committed by the Certificate holder.

Petition is finally disposed of in above terMs. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial