1 2025:CGHC:15084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2960 of 2022 1 - Ramashankar Gupta S/o Late Hajari Lal Gupta Aged About 68 Years R/o Hajari Chowk, Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Koriya, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 5 - Revenue Inspector Revenue Circle, Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Intervener : Mr. Venketesh Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the encroachment made on the subject land. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order as to direct the revenue authorities to take a prompt action on the report prepared with respect to encroachment within a stipulated time frame in accordance with law. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief including the cost of the petition, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is not challenging any particular order, but seeking direction to direct the revenue 3 authorities to take a prompt action on the report prepared with respect to encroachment made in the government land within a stipulated time frame in accordance with law. It is submitted that more than 22 persons have made encroachment on the government land reserved for burial place (Mukti Dham) way back in the year 1944-45 and have constructed house as well as shops and commercial premises. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a complaint, he has filed this petition with a relief that the encroachments are being made on the grass land of the State and as such the State authorities may kindly be directed to take prompt action against the persons concerned and on the report which has been filed in which the encroachment has been found. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that they have already taken steps and perhaps the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner has been redressed and this petition has become infructuous. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, firstly I have to consider whether the petitioner is having any locus to file this petition or not ? From the grievance as raised by the petitioner in this petition seems that the the petitioner is having no locus to file this petition, he is mere a complainant and it would be upon the concerned authorities to take care of the land 4 in dispute as the grass land is belonging to State, however, inspite of that since the petition has been filed and the matter is seized by the concerned Revenue authorities, I do not consider to be a fit case to pass any order in this respect. The Revenue authorities are expected to decide the matter within some stipulated period. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat