1 2025:CGHC:19288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2059 of 2025 Savita Dewangan W/o Umarchand Dewangan Aged About 49 Years R/o Colony Pahadipara Gudhiyari Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Additional Commissioner Raipur Division District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Circuit Court Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Deputy Collector District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Revenue Officer Patan District - Durg (C.G.) 6 - Tehsildar Patan District - Durg (C.G,) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.01 11:00:24 +0530 2 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to decide the case of the petitioner which is registered as revenue case no. 202207101500057 expeditiously, in the interest of Justice. 2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction, thereby directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation preferred by Petitioner and decide the pending case expeditiously. 3. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner is a owner of land bearing Khasra No. 533 admeasuring 0.81 Hectare and Khasra No. 534 admeasuring 1.44 Hectare, which is situated beside a pond, which is being used by general public/villagers. As per clause 20(1) Revenue Book Circular Vol.4 No.3, any land of normal value can be exchanged with any other land at current market value. He further submits that the petitioner made an application before Collector, Durg as per Clause 20(1) of the circular to exchange the land, which was rejected by the Collector, Durg as per Clause 20/11 of the circular to exchange the land vide order dated 02.10.2012. It has been contended that being 3 aggrieved with the order of collector, he preferred an appeal under Section 44 of C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959 (for short, Code, 1959’), before learned Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, which was also dismissed and against the order of learned Additional Commissioner, a review application was made under Section 51 of the Code, 1959 by the office of Collector, District Durg, through the Officer In-charge, which was also dismissed on 26.07.2013. It has been further contended that thereafter, a revision was preferred under Section 50 of Code, 1959 before the learned Revenue Board, Circuit Court, Bilaspur against the order dated 26.07.2013 and learned Revenue Board, Circuit Court, Bilaspur passed an order on 07.06.2022 holding that the Revenue Board does not have the jurisdiction to hear the revision under Section 50 of the Code, 1959. Hence, it is clear that the revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division was rejected as it was not tenable in the Revenue Board and the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division on 21.05.2013 was kept intact. It has been submitted that in compliance with the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 21.05.2013, an application has been submitted by the petitioner before the learned Collector, Durg and after reports and enquiry were made and compliance was done as accordingly by the petitioner, the learned Collector, after consideration, fixed the case on 13.02.2024 for passing of the order, but more than a year has 4 been passed, still the order has not been passed by learned Collector in the said case, whereas in the said case, the order was fixed by the learned Collector only after the petitioner and Chhattisgarh Government completed the entire proceedings. The petitioner and her Counsel have appeared in the Court of learned Collector several times for the date fixed, but till date no order has been passed in the said case, as such, a direction be given to the learned Collector to decide the case of the petitioner in a considerable time frame. 4 Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly looking to the fact that the matter is pending since 2013, the Collector, Durg is directed to decide the application preferred by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 5 With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh