1 2025:CGHC:41061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4360 of 2025 1 - Satyam Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramhai Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Churtela, Tehsil Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 5 - Lakhpati @ Sahni Yadav S/o Vikram Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Churtela, Tehsil Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For petitioners : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Nayak, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14/08/2025 1. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction from this Court to decide the Revenue Case No. 15/A- 68/2024-2025 pending before the respondent No. 3 as expeditiously as possible. 2 2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondents to consider the pending reveue case, he is having no objection to the limited prayer and if the Revenue Case No. 15/A-68/2024-2025 is pending, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. 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 respondent No. 3 to decide the Revenue Case No. 15/A-68/2024-2025 on its own merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti