1 2025:CGHC:44265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4647 of 2025 1 - Anuj Ram Janghel S/o Shri Thanwar Janghel Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Medical Chowk, Village Bortara, Tahsil Saja, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lomash Lodhi S/o Shri Deenbandhu Lodhi Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Medical Chowk, Village Bortara, Tahsil Saja, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil Saja, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Bortara, Tahsil Saja, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Veer Verma & Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocates. For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishab Bisen, PL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following direction: 2 “10.1 This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents to immediately prevent respondent No.4 from filling up the government pond bearing Khasra No. 1221, situated at Village - Bortara, Tahsil - Saja, District - Bemetara (C.G.). 10.2 This, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to restore and conserve the government pond for public use, ensuring its availability for the petitioners and other residents of Village Bortara. 10.3 This, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/Collector to consider and decide the complaint/representation dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law/rules within an stipulated time frame. 3. Learned State Counsel contended that looking to the nature of reliefs sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition is not maintainable, however, he is not having any objection to the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner with regard to the early disposal of the complaint/representation Annexure P-3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering facts of the case, above submissions of counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage directing 3 respondent No.2/Collector to consider and decide the complaint/representation Annexure P-3 in accordance with relevant law/rule/regulation within an outer limit of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-