1 2025:CGHC:52406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5589 of 2025 1 - Nandlal Jaswani S/o Late Shri Nebhandas Jaswani Aged About 70 Years R/o Mahasati Ward, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Father's Name And Age Not Mentioned In Revenue Case) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Raghunath S/o Jagnuram Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Patpar, P.H.No. 39, Tehsil - Bhatapara, District - Baldobazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Age Of Respondent Nos. 01 To 04 Not Mentioned In Revenue Case) 2 - Ghanshyam S/o Pyarelal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Patpar, P.H.No. 39, Tehsil - Bhatapara, District - Baldobazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Age Of Respondent Nos. 01 To 04 Not Mentioned In Revenue Case) 3 - Khilawan S/o Pyarelal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Patpar, P.H.No. 39, Tehsil - Bhatapara, District - Baldobazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Age Of Respondent Nos. 01 To 04 Not Mentioned In Revenue Case) 4 - Sarita W/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Patpar, P.H.No. 39, Tehsil - Bhatapara, District - Baldobazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Age Of Respondent Nos. 01 To 04 Not Mentioned In Revenue Case) 5 - Tehsildar Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Sub-Divisional O<cer (Revenue) Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - Collector District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.10.30 10:56:43 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/10/2025 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is not challenging any particular order, but seeking direction to expedite the compliance/execution of order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Tehsildar, Bhatapara, District-Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Revenue Case No. 20230210500004/ अ-68/ 2021-22 titled "Nandlal Jaswani v. Raghunath and Others". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has Dled an application before Tehsildar, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) stating that he is the owner and in possession of land bearing Khasra No.87/7 admeasuring 0.049 hectares situated at Village- Patpar, P.H.No.39, District-Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.). Government land bearing Khasra No.85/7, admeasuring 0.117 hectares is situated just infront of the Petitioner's land and Respondent Nos. 01 to 04 have encroached upon the government land. Due to the activity of the Respondent Nos.01 to 04, Petitioner's way(road) over his land has been obstructed thereby causing nuisance and disturbance to the Petitioner. On the application of the Petitioner, Tehsildar got report from the Halka Patwari, in which Halka Patwari has reported that Respondent Nos.01 to 04 have encroached over the government land bearing Khasra No.85/7, admeasuring 0.117 hectares. Reply was Dled by Respondent Nos.01 to 04 and have admitted that they have encroached over the government land. They have further prayed that the business being run by them on the government land, is the only source of their income and livelihood and they may not be dispossessed from the said land. After careful perusal of the documents and evidence, the Tehsildar, Bhatapara, allowing the application Dled by the Petitioner has passed an order dated 13.07.2023, dispossessing Respondent Nos.01 to 04 from the government land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order of Tehsildar, Bhatapara, Respondent Nos.01 to 04 have not complied with the order and have till date encroached over the government land. 3 That, Petitioner has also made an application dated 05.07.2024 before Sub-Divisional O<cer (Revenue), Bhatapara, and application dated 27.05.2025 before Collector, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara, (C.G.) for compliance/execution of the order of Tehsildar, Bhatapara, but no action has been taken by the concerned authorities. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent-authorities to consider the pending representation, they are having no objection to the limited prayer. If the petitioner Dles a fresh representation before the Tehsildar, the same shall be considered/decided in accordance with law. 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 Dnd it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the petitioner to Dle a fresh representation before the concerned Tehsildar within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in-turn, the concerned Tehsildar shall decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, rules and regulations, after giving su<cient opportunity to the respondents No. 1 to 4. 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