1 2026:CGHC:10228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 866 of 2026 1 - D. K. Soni S/o Late Ramji Prasad Soni, Aged About 47 Years R/o- Nawapara, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. 2 - Kunjbihari Gupta, S/o. Shri Rupnarayan Gupta, Aged About 57 Years R/o- Main Road, Ward No. 16, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Office- Municipal Corporation, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 3 - Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. 4 - Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 6 - Tehsildar, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 7 - Ritesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Suresh Agrawal, R/o. Ward No.16 Nehru Park Road Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS system) For Petitioners : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For State/ Respondents No.1, 4 to 6 : Mr. Purunendra Khichariya, P.L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.02.28 10:22:42 +0530 2 Order on Board 27/02/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s) : “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order or direct the respondent authorities to expeditiously conclude Revenue Case No.139/2017-18 pending before Tehsildar, Surajpur within 30 days from the date of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 3. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that Revenue Case No.139/2017-18, pertaining to encroachment, has been pending consideration before the Tehsildar, Surajpur (Respondent No.6) since the year 2017, and the same has not been decided yet. 4. When a specific question was posed to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners are the complainants in the said revenue case, she submitted that the petitioners are objectors. The petitioners has neither filed the application on the basis of which the aforesaid revenue case has been initiated nor they are the complainants therein; rather, they are objectors. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, hence, the same is disposed of. However, liberty is left with the petitioners to approach the concerned Collector for redressal of their grievance, if any. 5. It is further observed that if the said revenue case under Section 248 (1) of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 has been pending since the year 2017, it is surprising that, even after lapse of more than eight 3 years, the matter has not been reached its logical conclusion. This aspect ought to have been considered by respondent No.6 to decide the case expeditiously. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar