1 2025:CGHC:22492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2743 of 2025  Gautam Panda S/o Late Shri Sitaram Panda Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Pusaur, Tahsil - Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner Bilaspur Division District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Collector District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Additional Collector District Raigarh (C.G.) 5. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Tahsildar Tahsil - Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 7. Additional Tahsildar Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 8. The Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 9. Uttam Panda S/o Late Sitaram Panda Aged About 41 Years Priest Of Jagannath Temple, R/o Village- Pusaru, Tahsil - Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 10. Pramod Gupta S/o Shri Rohit Gupta Aged About 40 Years Vice President / Manager Of Jagannath Temple, R/o Village- Pusaur, Tahsil - Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S. Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Caveator : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, (Order on Board) 03/06/2025 1. Heard Ms. Roop Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the State & Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel for caveator. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the legality and propriety fo the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal Case No.202407990200003/A- 66/2023-24, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.9 and 10 has been allowed and lease/right granted in favour of the petitioner in Revenue Case No. 02/A-66/2017-18 has been rejected. 3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach before the State Govt. He further prays that as the matter relates to cancellation of lease (patta), the concerned authority may be directed to decide the same within some specified time and he also contended that in the meanwhile, status quo should be granted in favour of the petitioner because the petitioner has been possessing the land after allotment being 3 done by the State Government in his favour and he has constructed the house. 4. In this regard, the State has no objection. 5. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for respective parties, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government with respect to the patta earlier granted to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and the concerned authorities are also directed to decide the same within further period of 60 days. In the meanwhile, status quo shall be maintained. 6. In view of above, I.A. No.02/2025, for urgent hearing and I.A.No.03/2025 for hearing during summer vacation also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge pekde