1 2025:CGHC:42280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4457 of 2025 1 - Basdev Kushwaha S/o Late Shri Thakur Dayal Kushwaha Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Wadrafnagar, Tahsil Wasdfranagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Rammilan Kushwaha S/o Late Shri Thakur Dayal Kushwaha Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Wadrafnagar, Tahsil Wasdfranagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Wadrafnagar District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Jagdish Kushwaha S/o Ramnarayan Kushwaha Aged About 62 Years Village Wadrafnagar, Tahsil Wasddranagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21/08/2025 1. By way of this present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the 2 following reliefs: 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 direct the respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the Revenue Case No. 202505271100156/2024-25 parties being Thakur Dayal Vs. State of C.G. within stipulated period in accordance with law. 10.3 Grant any other reliefs/orders/directions in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any specific order but has filed the present petition against the delaying tactic of the respondent no. 4 in deciding the application moved by the petitioner for correction of the revenue record in compliance of the order passed by the respondent no. 2. The petitioner has moved an application for correction of the revenue record in compliance of the order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 on 09.05.2025 but the respondent no. 4 has not decided the same till date. 3 3. Learned State Counsel raised no objection. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, the respondent no. 4 is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner as early as possible, in accordance with law, rules and regulations. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima