1 2025:CGHC:4424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 503 of 2025 1 - Mohd. Ramjan Ansari S/o Mohd. Nejamuddin Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 16, Village - Ranpurkhurd, Schoolpara, Parsa, District - Surguja (C.G.). Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Commissioner Surguja, Division Surguja, Ambikapur District – Surguja C.G.). 3 - Collector Surguja, Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.). 4 - Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Ambikapur, Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.). 5 - Tehsildar Ambikapur, Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.). 6 - Jitendra Singh S/o Vishwanath Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sonpurkala, Police Station - Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambilapur, District - Surguja (C.G.). 7 - Satendra Singh S/o Vishwanath Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Sonpurkala, Police Station - Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambilapur, District - Surguja (C.G.). RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.24 17:48:23 +0530 2 8 - Pradeep Tripathi S/o Suresh Tripathi, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sonpurkala, Police Station - Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambilapur, District - Surguja (C.G.). 9 - Vinod Singh S/o Rambachan Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Sonpurkala, Police Station - Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambilapur, District - Surguja (C.G.). Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction towards the respondent authority particularly SDO (Revenue) to whom, the petitioner has raised the grievance against respondent No. 6 to 9 who are raising some construction over the ancestral land of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that inspite of the intimation to the Revenue Authority, no steps has been taken by the authority concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has submitted a copy of representation to the SDO Revenue and the SDO Revenue shall look into the matter and shall take steps in accordance with law. 4. I have heard course for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 3 5. From perusal of the pleading, it appears that the petitioner has submitted the representation to the Collector as well as the SDO alleging that respondent No. 6 to 8 are raising construction over the ancestral land of the petitioner. Therefore, it is directed that the concerned SDO shall look into the matter and shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul