1 2025:CGHC:41060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4362 of 2025 1 - Ramhirde Sahu @ Hirdey S/o Late Shri Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kirwai, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Kirwai, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For petitioners : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has prayed frequently before the respondents that he has possessed the land in which he is continuing cultivating the crops for more than 45 years. Now the respondents forcefully dispossess the petitioner from his land for making there “Muktidham & Yatri Pratikshalaya” without acquiring the land of the petitioner. It is 2 humbly submitted that there are two other Muktidham situated in the same village and the petitioner is owner of the land which is the part of the land vide its Khasra No. 874 area 50 dismil/ 0.50 hectare is situated at village Kirwai, Gram Panchayat and he is cultivating the crops in the said land as well as the petitioner is ready to grant 10 dismil land for the use of Gram Panchayat, which is sufficient for making “Muktidham & Yatri Pratikshalaya” for the public of the village. In this regard, the petitioner filed application before the respondents authorities (Annexure P-4), but till date same is pending consideration, therefore he prays for a direction to decide the same. 2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioners seeking direction to respondents to consider the pending application, he is having no objection to the limited prayer and if the application of the petitioner is pending (Annexure P-4), it will be considered in accordance with law after due enquiry. 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. 2 to decide the application of the petitioner (Annexure P/2) on its own merits 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