1 2025:CGHC:29319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3312 of 2025 1 - Mannu Nishad S/o Pardeshi Nishad Aged About 58 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Near Holy Cross School, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhannu Nishad S/o Pardeshi Nishad Aged About 48 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Ram Nagar Ward No 01, Thana And Tehsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Arjun Nishad S/o Pardeshi Nishad Aged About 52 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Village- Karhi, Post- Dashrang, Tehsil- Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chainu Ram Nishad Aged About 60 Years Adoptive Father (God Pita) Nandoua Nishad Natural Father Pardeshi Nishad, Caste- Kewat, R/o Ramnagar Ward No. 1, Thana And Tehsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. Mobile No. 9329740165 2 - Commissioner Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 01/07/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (i)It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order and set aside/ quash the Order dated 05.06.2025 passed by Court of Commissioner, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in appeal case No. 333/A-27/year 2024-25 (Chainuram Nishad Vs. Mannu Nishad & Ors) Annexure P/7. (ii) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the commissioner to decide the pending appeal expeditiously within 2 60 days. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for declaration of title, partition and possession filed by the petitioners was allowed by the learned trial Court. The decree of trial Court was affirmed up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of the petitioners. In pursuance of the decree passed by the competent Court, the suit land was partitioned and names of the petitioners were mutated in revenue records by the order of tehsildar. The respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal challenging the order of mutation before Sub Divisional Officer. The appeal of respondent No. 1 was dismissed against which the respondent No. 1 preferred a second appeal before learned Commissioner who without issuing notice to the petitioners and without verifying the documents or averments of the respondent No. 1 granted interim relief to respondent No. 1. Therefore, he prays for quashment of the interim order and also prays for a direction to the Commissioner to decide the pending representation/appeal. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to consider/decide the representation/appeal, he is having no objection to the limited prayer and if the appeal is pending, it will be considered/decided in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the respondents No.2 shall consider/decide the representation/appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti