1 / 3 2025:CGHC:1016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2559 of 2024 1 - Samarth Kumar S/o Late Vinay Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 59 Years R/o House No.- 776 Kanahiyapuri, Kasarideeh, Tehsil- Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Registrar, Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Registrar, Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Town And Country Planning Through- The Joint Director, Town And Country Planning, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.09 17:36:19 +0530 2 / 3 Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a quashment of the order dated 22/02/2022 as far as, the same is concerned to the petitioner’s land. The petitioner also seeking a direction towards respondents authorities not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the paragraph 7 of the reply filed by the respondent/State submits that, “the order dated 22/02/2022 goes to show that the Registrar, Durg has written a letter to the Dy. Registrar, Durg, wherein, he has mentioned the details of the lands in which action is proposed from authorities. Nowhere in the impugned order of Annexure P-2 it has ben stated that the petitioner would be restrained from selling of his land.” He would further submits that the writ petition may be disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State in paragraph 7 of its reply. 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondent has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the State has stated in his reply that there is nothing to show that the petitioner is restrained from selling the land in dispute owned by the petitioner. 3 / 3 5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep