1 2026:CGHC:2972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 220 of 2026 1 - Virjo Panna W/o Late Shri Shashi Panna Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Barjor, Post Kansabel, Tahsil Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Forest Officer Chhattisgarh State Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapar And Vikas) Sahkari Sangh Maryadit Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Forest Range Officer Chhattisgarh State Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapar And Vikas) Sahkari Sangh Maryadit Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Secretary Chhattisgarh State Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapar And Vikas) Sahkari Sangh Maryadit Sector 243 Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi and Mr. Sukhnath Ram Bhagat, Advocates. For State/Respondents : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 19/01/2026 1. At the outset learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits, however, he may be permitted RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.01.21 10:39:37 +0530 2 to submit fresh representation before the competent authority for redressal of his claim as pleaded in this writ petition seeking compensation under Rajmohni Devi Tendupatta Samajik Suraksha Yojya, and a direction be issued to concerned authority to consider and take decision on representation to be submitted by petitioner within specified time. 2. Learned counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits, he is having no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty with the petitioner to submit fresh representation before the concerned authority and, if such representation is submitted, concerned authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of 3 months from the date of receipt of representation. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 6. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar