1 2025:CGHC:48444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5009 of 2025 Smt. Vibha Pandey W/o Shri Jay Narayan Pandey, Aged About 58 Years R/o Imlipara, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tahsildar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sarkari Karmchari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Bilaspur (C.G.) Through The Chairman Mopka, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order directing the respondent no. 3 and other 2 sub-ordinate revenue authorities to decide the petitioner’s application for land demarcation case no. 202506072500131/v/2012 strictly in accordance with law, within a time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, preferably within four to six weeks from the date of order. 10.2 To kindly direct the respondents to ensure that all consequential steps for the actual demarcation and marking of boundaries on the petitioner’s land are completed without further delay and with due notice to all interested parties; 10.3 To kindly pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances fo the present case, including the cost of this petition, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition against the continued inaction and failure of the respondent authorities-specifically the Tehsildar, Bilaspur and subordinate revenue officials- to take effective and timely steps for demarcation of the petitioner’s land, despite a duly registered application and repeated requests over a period 3 exceeding 15 months. The impugned action, manifest through a series of perfunctory adjournments and absence of substantive progress, amounts to a denial of statutory remedy and a gross dereliction of public duty, thereby necessitating the intervention of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate directions. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide the application dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, respondent no. 3 is directed to decide the application dated 18.03.2024 for land demarcation case no. 202506072500131/v/2012 filed by the petitioner before respondent no. 3 (Annexure P/1) in accordance with law, rules, regulations within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima