1 2025:CGHC:47249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4773 of 2025 1 - Jagdish Nagesiya S/o Sundar Nagesiya Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Amtahi, Police Station And Tehsil- Samri, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary P.W.D., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector Balrampur- Ramanuj Ganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, C.G. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Kusmi District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 4 - Tehsildar Samri District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 5 - Rajkumar Gupta S/o Lakheshwar Sao Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Amtahi, Police Station And Tehsil- Samri, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Prashant Dansena, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Soumitra Kesarwani, PL 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 15/09/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby direction may be issued to the respondent authorities for early disposal of representations dated 22.07.2025 and 29.07.2025 (Annexure P/1 and P/2 respectively) submitted before the Collector, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj regarding protection of his illegal land from interference by respondent No.5. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the lawful and rightful owner and cultivator of agricultural land situated in Village Amtahi, District Balrampur-Ramanjuganj, which is duly recorded in the revenue records in his name. The said land is the sole source of his livelihood and he is in peaceful possession and continuous cultivation thereof for several years and respondent No.5 namely Raj Kumar Gupta, without any authority of law, has been illegally interfering with the petitioner’s land and causing damage and destruction thereto. The petitioner being aggrieved by such unlawful acts, made a detailed representation before the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj on 22.07.2025 and again on 29.07.2025, requesting immediate intervention and protection of his land. However, despite lapse of considerable time, no action has been taken on the said representations. Hence, this present petition. 3 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the rightful owner and cultivator of the disputed agricultural land in question yet respondent No.5 is illegally interfering and damaging the land. and is entitled to peaceful possession of the same. He submits that because of the arbitrary action of the respondent No.2 despite repeated representations is violative of the principle of non-arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner’s right to livelihood, integrally linked to his agricultural land is being infringed, amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. He submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representations within a time bound manner and ensure protection of the petitioner's land from illegal encroachment and interference. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the representations of the petitioner are under consideration and necessary action, if any shall be taken strictly in accordance with law. It is further submitted that there is no infringement of fundamental rights and the writ petition may be disposed with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the authority concerned and in turn the same shall be decided within a reasonable time frame. 6. Looking to the grievance raised by the petitioner and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner submits a fresh application/representation before the respondent authorities, ie. the Collector (Respondent No.2) and the Tahsildar, Samri. District 4 Balrampur, Ramanujganj (respondent No.4), within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of this order, the said authorities shall consider and decide the petitioner’s representation afresh, strictly in accordance with law. It is further directed that the concerned Collector and Tahsildar shall ensure expeditious disposal of the representation after granting the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.5. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities concerned shall decide the representation in accordance with law. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.19 11:26:39 +0530