1 2025:CGHC:23466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(C) No. 2748 of 2025 - Balbhadra S/o Late R.N. Singh Aged About 69 Years R/o Gurgaon, Sector 36-A. A.V.L. Society, Flat No. 102, Block 08, Gurugram, District Gurugaon, Haryana ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Brijesh Singh S/o Late R.N. Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Mangla, In Front Of North Gate Of Holy Cross School, Mangla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 12/06/2025 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records pertaining to the case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to decide the E-revenue caseNo.202407072400425/A-6/2023-2024 expeditiously in a time bound manner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deemed just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The instant writ petition is preferred against the impugned inaction of the respondent number 03, wherein the appeal preferred by petitioner under section 44 (1) read with section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code registered as E- Revenue case no. 202407072400425/A- 6/20232024 is kept pending without any proper reason since 31/07/2024. The petitioner is the owner of the land and house situated in Mangla, PatwariHalka No. 21, Revenue Inspection Board 967/2 A (6) total area Bilaspur, Khasra No. 953/3, 0.08 acre or 0.032 hectare, 3 Bilaspur (District and Tehsil ). Also the petitioner left - he visited Bilaspur in year 2016 thereafter the brother (private who respondent) lived in the house built in the land owned by the petitioner but out of malice the name of the brother ( private respondent) is mutated in the land records after deleting the name of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned inaction of the respondent authority by not deciding the appeal registered as Revenue case no. 202407072400425/A-6/2023 2024, is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal revenue case is kept pending for a year without any proper reason again and again the appeal is adjourned by the S.D.O. without any proper material in hand. He further contended that the appeal revenue case is supposed to be heard properly and decided in a timely manner but on the other hand the S.D.O. is bent upon to linger and delay the appeal revenue case just in order to benefit the private respondent. The S.D.O. has now sought for records of mortgage which was made by the petitioner before several decades and petitioner has also repaid the amount. He also contended that the petitioner’s name was earlier mutated in the land records but on the basis of forged will and concocted documents the private respondent has entered his name in the land records. The private respondent has entered his name on the basis of decree and order of mutation both of which the effect and operation has been nulled and set aside by order dated 19/10/2023. 4 4. Learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On due consideration and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of at this stage, directing respondent No.3 to decide the E-revenue case No.202407072400425/A-6/2023-2024 as expeditiously as possible as per law, rules and regulations. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court and shall decide the case of the petitioner on its own merits. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant