1 2025:CGHC:54545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5834 of 2025 1 - Shri Anil Rao S/o Shri Late Anand Rao Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 82, Phase-03, Lotus City, Parsada, Kumhari, Tahsil - Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Shri Ravindra Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Mandata Thakur R/o House No. 146/3, Street No. 12, Pashchim Risali, Ashish Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/11/2025 PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.11.12 15:33:56 +0530 2 1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the arbitrary action on the part of respondent No.5 of keeping a four wheeler (car) on the land owned by the petitioner, he has filed an application under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code (short “the Code of 1959”) for reinstatement of his rights over the said land. After removal of the encroachment made by respondent No.5, the proceedings on application filed under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 was decided in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for execution of the said order and for his reinstatement over the land in dispute. He contended that the execution application was filed on 16.08.2024, however, till date, the Tehsildar has not reinstated the petitioner pursuant to the order passed under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 in his favour, even after lapse of more than one year. He also contended that though the case was fixed for orders on 07.08.2025, but till date, the petitioner has not been reinstated on the land, even after lapse of 3 months. 2. Counsel for the State submits that with respect to the relief sought in para 10.2, the petitioner is only seeking a direction to the concerned authority to pass a final order. However, since the proceedings are still pending consideration before respondent No.4, he is not making any submission on merits of the case. Furthermore, the grievance of the petitioner is against respondent No.5. 3. Considering the submissions of counsel for the respective parties, the nature of the relief sought, particularly the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner regarding pendency of application for execution of 3 order under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 before the Tehsildar since 16.08.2024, instead of issuing notice to the respondents and keeping this writ petition pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing respondent No.4 to conclude the revenue proceedings bearing No.202408100700066 pending before it expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no order of stay. Ordered accordingly. 4. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Priyanka