1 2025:CGHC:34779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3796 of 2025 1 - Birjhu Ram Patel S/o Late Ram Prasad Patel Aged About 69 Years R/o Beech Para, Mechka, Arsikanhar, Sondur Project, District- Dhamtari C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri, District Dhamtari C.G. 5 - Tahsildar, Nagri, District Dhamtari C.G. 6 - Forest Divisional Officer, General Forest Division Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 22/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be 2 pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application/representation/complaint filed by the petitioners before the respondent authorities. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to give interest on the compensation amount to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief/s which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have taken the suit land and has not provided any compensation to the petitioner and other villagers. The petitioner is facing huge economical difficulties and loss due to the above fact and they are irreparable.. hence the petitioner has moved several representations to the higher authorities/respondents, but to the disappointment no reply has been given by the concerned authorities till date. 3. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection, if direction of timely decision of the representation made by the petitioner be made by this 3 Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. After care perusal of the record available, it is clear that the petitioner has made representation for the several times to the respondent authorities with regard to the compensation after the acquirement of the suit property/disputed land, however, till date no reply or decision has been taken by the concerned respondent authorities, due to which the petitioner along with other villager people must have been suffering. Therefore, this Court directs the concerned respondent authorities to decide the representation made by the petitioner expeditiously. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima