1 2025:CGHC:27771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1438 of 2019 1 - Upendra S/o Makhan Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Navagaon Revenue Circle Sankara, Tahsil Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Premu Lal Sahu The Then Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh At Present Posted As Nayab Tahsildar At Tahsil Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4/ State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take disciplinary against the respondent No. 3 and direct the respondent authorities to give proper compensation to the petitioner in respect of the house demolished by the respondent authorities. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.06.26 14:28:17 +0530 2 2. Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would fairly argue that a representation/complaint (Annexure P-8) was made to the Collector, Mahasamund/respondent No.2 on 04.06.2018, but till date, the same has not been decided. She would further argue that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 2 to consider and pass appropriate order(s) on the representation of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that if the representation made by the petitioner is still pending before the authority, the same would be considered strictly in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the representation/complaint dated 04.06.2018 was made by the petitioner, but till date, the same has not been decided, at this juncture, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate order(s) on the representation of the petitioner in objective manner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction(s), this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti