MOHAMMAD HAFIZ, S/o Abdul Hamid, v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,
WPC/4057/2021 · 2026-05-10
Shri Parth Prateem Sahu
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20156 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20156 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2026:CGHC:22128
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4057 of 2021
1. Mohammad Hafiz, S/o Abdul Hamid, Upsarpanch At Gram Panchayat Malgaon, At - Gram Panchayat Malgaon, Vikaskhand Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Commissioner Raipur Division, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
2. Collector District Gariyaband, at District Gariyaband (CG)
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh
4. Smt. Parvati Dhruv, W/o Dulesh Dhruv, Aged About 27 Years At - Village Malgaon, Vikash Khand Tehsil And District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh
5. Omprakash, Ex Secretary At Gram Panchayat Malgaon, At - Village Malgaon, Vikash Khand Tehsil And District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent-State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.05.12 10:49:13 +0530
2 Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board 11.05.2026
1. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent State submits that according to his instruction, this writ petition is rendered infructuous as the challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Commissioner by which interim application filed by respondent No.4 along with appeal filed before the Collector against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, came to be rejected. Whereas, during pendency of this petition, appeal filed by respondent No.4 before the Collector has been finally decided and allowed on 10.1.2022. A copy of
order dated 10.1.2022 passed in Appeal Case No.202101220600009 (Parwati Dhruv vs State of Chhattisgarh and Mohammad Hafiz) is placed for perusal of this Court.
2. As there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-