1 2025:CGHC:14184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 254 of 2025  Shobhna George W/o Sapan George Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Rajeev Nagar, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Rohit Singh, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) 2. Lilar Goswami S/o Arjun Puri Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Rajeev Nagar, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None, even in the second round. For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 1 in the appeal number 202209050700003/0502/Apl सन् 2022- 23 and a direction may be issued to decide the stay SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.26 10:27:32 +0530 2 proceedings first and then the appeal. 10.3 That, any other relief and direction which this Hon'ble Court fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 That, the cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. A perusal of pleadings made in this petition would show that an application under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 was filed by the petitioner and the Tahsildar passed an order in his favour. Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and submitted a false affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was raising the construction of stairs over the disputed land. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 1 without conducting any enquiry passed the order of stay in favour of respondent No. 2 on 25.08.2023 and the appeal has been pending since then. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora, District Korba to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time frame. 3. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer has been arrayed as a respondent by name, therefore, no such direction can be issued. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 is pending consideration before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora since 2023 and the stay is operating in favour of respondent No. 2; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora to dispose of the case expeditiously, if already not decided. 3 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant