1 2025:CGHC:14318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1543 of 2025 1 - Komal Kumar Jain S/o Lt. Tikamchand Jain Aged About 52 Years R/o- Shubhash Chowk, Ward No. 14, Bhilai- Charauda P.S.- Bhilai-3, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Rajgami Sampada, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil Office, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar And Administrator Rajgami Sampada, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil Office, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Nidhi and Md. Zakir Aman Shah, Advocates For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi and Md. Zakir Aman Shah, learned RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.03.28 18:02:22 +0530 2 counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned Panel Lawyer for State/respondent/s. 2. Since the matter is heard and decided finally, therefore, I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for exemption from filing typed copy is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has taken land in question under lease while making payment of Rs.1,30,000/- and caution money to the tune of Rs.26,000/- has also been paid. The total amount of lease is Rs.6,40,000/-, however due to failure on the part of the petitioner to do agricultural operation, he could not commence any agricultural operation in the property leased to him and as such he has moved an application for refund of amount deducting the caution money. The application of the same is pending before the concerned authorities since 01.07.2024. As such, he is making limited prayer that the authority concerned may be directed to consider his application and to pass appropriate orders. Additionally he has prayed that in some identical cases the authorities concerned have passed order dated 24.06.2024, according to which by deducting the caution money the rest of the amount has been returned. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that so far as limited prayer for considering his application is concerned, the State is having not objection. 5. Considering the overall circumstances of this case, the 3 respondents authorities are directed to the case of the petitioner and to decide the same in accordance with law by keeping the earlier order in which while deducting the caution money rest of the amount has been returned to the concerned petitioner. The petitioner is directed to pursue his application and in turn the authorities concerned are directed to consider and decide the same within some stipulated period preferable within sixty days. 6. With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi