1 2025:CGHC:49156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5088 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Kamla Kant Jaiswal Aged About 66 Years R/o Pratap Talkiz Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sadhna Jaiswal D/o Late Shri Kamla Kant Jaiswal Aged About 58 Years R/o Pratap Talkiz Chowk, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, 4th Floor, Block-D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/09/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition is a third round of litigation. 3. By way of the present writ petition, the Petitioner, through the instant writ petition, is not challenging any specific order but is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the inaction and apathy 2 of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Though the Respondent No. 2 in garb of order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P/9)passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPC No. 2188 of 2025 issued a memo dated 19.08.2025 and directed the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to provide police protection for the peaceful assumption of possession and protection of his own land, which is being illegally occupied and misused by certain local individuals. Even the petitioner has deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 22,942/- as directed by the Respondent No. 2, but till date the Respondent No. 2 & 3 have not initiated proceedings for assumption of possession of the questioned land as passed by the Nayab Tehsildar in Revenue Case No. 201904073200291/A-70/2019-20. However, despite being the lawful owner of the said parcel of land, the Petitioner, an elderly person, was forcibly prevented from constructing a fencing thereon. When he attempted to undertake the construction of a fencing, he was subjected to aggressive and humiliating behaviour, and was physically driven away from his own property by the encroachers. The Petitioner, being a senior citizen and unable to physically resist such unlawful and intimidating acts and made written representations to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, seeking police assistance and protection. In a bona fide gesture, the Petitioner even undertook to bear all expenses incurred for such police protection. However, the Respondents failed to take any action on his requests, thereby compelling the Petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court for appropriate relief. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the inaction of the Respondents amounts to a violation of his fundamental and statutory rights. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited 3 prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent-authorities to comply the order passed in WPC No. 2188/2025, he does not oppose the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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 & 4 to coordinate with each other and comply the order of this Court passed in WPC No. 2188/2025 as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti