1 2025:CGHC:22519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2749 of 2025 1 - Jitendra Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Singh Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o 17, Pnt Colony, Beside Rohinipuram Talab Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Khom Singh Thakur S/o Late Bhagwan Singh Thakur Aged About 52 Years R/o Gram Dhusera, Tahsil Abhanpur, Post Sivani, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Grameen Seva Sahkari Samiti, Maryadit Seoni, Registration No 412, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 05/06/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): 2 “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue calling for records pertaining to case of petitioner for perusal of this Hon’ble Court, if deem fit. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities to return the land of the petitioners in accordance with the circular dated 16.12.1993 as similarly situated persons have been given the land on returning the payment calculated in accordance with law in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice. OR A Writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the Respondent authorities to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure P/2) by way of reasoned order within the time framed fixed by this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of case.” 3 2. Briefly stated facts of the case is that the petitioners are not challenging any particular order and only seeking a decision on their representation submitted to the Responden Bank for restoration of the land over which charge has been created for obtaining agricultural loan of meagre sum of Rs. 600/- and on account of the non-payment in time the Respondent Bank got recorded their name in the land records in place of the Petitioner’s predecessors and the petitioners are desirous of making payment of the loan amount with accrued interest and regarding which also in representation the petitioner has shown his willingness and as per circular dated 16.12.199., the Respondent authority is bound to return the land to the petitioners being the successor to the debtor who has created the charge over the property and further when in respect of the other similarly situated persons the Bank authorities have taken steps for restoration of the title the claim of the petitioners by way of the present petition is for a direction to the Respondent Bank to take a decision in the matter on the representation of the Petitioners within the time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Respondent State authorities cannot be allowed to sit over the grievance of the petitioners or the representation cannot be allowed to gather dust in a system governed by the rule of law. The acts of omission and commission on the part of Respondent authorities are violative of 4 Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The core grievance of the petitioners are that they have made a representation to the Respondent Bank for restoration of the land over which charge has been created for obtaining agricultural loan of meagre sum of Rs. 600/- an on account of non-payment in time the Respondent Bank got recorded their name in the land records in place of the Petitioner’s predecessors. The Respondent Bank is sitting idle over the grievance of the petitioners and is not deciding their representation. 6. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to submit a fresh and detailed representation before the Respondent authority and the respondent is directed to decide the representation of the petitioners as per rule and law. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed off with the aforesaid direction. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima