1 2025:CGHC:25588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3042 of 2025 Laxmi Dhurandar W/o Shri Khemraj Dhurandar Aged About 61 Years R/o 24, Krishna Sakha Society, Daganiya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Simga, Distt.- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Nayab Tahsildar Suhela Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Shiv Kumar Baghel S/o Hariprem Baghel Aged About 68 Years R/o Vill.- Bhalesur, Tah.- Simga, Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Kanungo Simga Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate & Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma 2 Order on Board 19/06/2025 Heard. 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 issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.2 & 3 to decide the representation/claim of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) as early as possible. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or direction order order as deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by way of instant petition the petitioner is not challenging any particular order but she is challenging the inaction of the respondent No. 03/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Simga, Dist.-Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, whereby he has failed to comply the order dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Respondent No. 02/Collector Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, wherein it has been directed to the respondent No. 03 to call the records of the year 1997 to 2004-05 from the Office of Tahsildar Simga/Kanungo and to reconsider the objection raised by the petitioner on its own merit, but the respondent No. 03 has failed to comply the same and not called the records from the Office of Tahsildar, Simga and also not decided the 3 objection raised by the petitioner even after repeated representation made by her since last more than 09 years. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the State fairly admitted that as per Annexure P-3, enquiry report sent by the Nayab Tahsildar, District Baloda-Bazar Bhatapara has reported to the SDO (Revenue), Simga, Baloda Bazar that without any right and without following the norms of rule of mutation 27 & 32, mutated the name of the other person. He further contended that it may be directed to the Collector, Baloda Bazar to look into the matter and decide the representation/claim of the petitioner Annexure P-1. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the respective parties and with the aforesaid discussion, this Court has directed to the respondents No.2 & 3 to consider and decide the representation/claim of the petitioner Annexure P-1 as early as possible, as per relevant rules, regulations and law. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant