1 2026:CGHC:22800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2461 of 2026 1 - Vinod Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kishanlal Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o 19, Aamapara Ward Sadar, Bazar, Dhamtari Tehsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Pramod Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kishanlal Agrawal Aged About 69 Years R/o 19, Aamapara Ward Sadar, Bazar, Dhamtari Tehsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Pradeep Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kishanlal Agrawal Aged About 65 Years R/o 19, Aamapara Ward Sadar, Bazar, Dhamtari Tehsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Sandhya Jhunjhunwala W/o Shri Anil Jhunjhunwala D/o Late Shri Kishanlal Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o 19, Aamapara Ward Sadar, Bazar, Dhamtari Tehsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Department Of Revenue Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex Nawa Raipur (Atal Nagar) Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bastar, District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Nayab Tehsildar, Prezarpur District- Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Anju Lunkad W/o Ashok Kumar Lunkad, R/o Sadar Ward Jagdalpur, , District- Bastar (C.G.) 6 - Shri Hitesh Chopda S/o N.D. Chopda R/o Shanti Nagar Ward Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.15 17:27:09 +0530 2 7 - Shivsevak S/o Sumant Singh Chatriya Ro Pandripani Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 8 - Janki Bai Wd/o Mathura Prasad R/o Pandripani Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 9 - Executive Engineer , Chhattisgarh Girih Niram Mandal, Division Jagdalpur, , District- Bastar (C.G.) 10 - Executive Engineer National Highway, Authority Of India Division Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners call in question the inaction and arbitrary conduct on the part of respondent No.4 in not complying with the directions issued by respondent No.3 vide order dated 17.12.2021 pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Collector/respondent No.2, whereby a detailed enquiry was directed to be conducted on specific issues, but despite lapse of considerable time neither any enquiry has been conducted nor any report has been submitted by the concerned authorities, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- 3 “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling the relevant records from the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue direction to the respondent no.4 to comply with the order dated 13.12.2021 and conduct enquiry and provide the report in the points pointed out by the respondent no.2, within specific period of time. 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue direction to the respondent authorities to expeditiously decide the representation filed by the petitioner which is pending before the respondent authorities. 10.4 Cost of the proceedings. 10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the mother of the petitioners, namely Smt. Manorama Devi Agrawal, was the recorded owner and title holder of land bearing part of Khasra No.1/8 (earlier Khasra No.1/77) admeasuring about 5 acres situated at Village Pandripani, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, acquired through registered sale deed dated 16.04.1964 and her name was duly reflected in the revenue records. Subsequently, upon coming to know that the names of private respondents had allegedly been recorded over portions of the said land after 4 bandobasth proceedings, the mother of the petitioners preferred an application before the competent revenue authority seeking correction of revenue entries. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry and demarcation were conducted by the Revenue Inspector, who reportedly found that the land in question had been recorded under different khasra numbers in the names of respondent Nos.5 to 10. Thereafter, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, respondent No.3 submitted a report dated 03.12.2021 finding that the omission of the name of the petitioners’ mother from the revenue records was erroneous and required rectification. However, when the matter was forwarded to respondent No.2 for approval, further enquiry on certain specific points was directed vide order dated 13.12.2021, pursuant to which respondent No.3, by order dated 17.12.2021, directed respondent No.4/Nayab Tehsildar to conduct enquiry and submit report. According to the petitioners, despite lapse of more than four years and repeated representations, neither any enquiry has been conducted nor any report has been submitted by respondent No.4, compelling the petitioners, who have inherited the property after the death of their mother on 10.08.2024, to approach this Court alleging arbitrary inaction and violation of their constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the present case reflects a glaring instance of administrative apathy, arbitrariness and deliberate inaction on the part of the respondent 5 authorities in discharge of their statutory duties. It is submitted that despite a categorical direction issued by the superior revenue authority vide order dated 13.12.2021 directing respondent No.4/Nayab Tehsildar to conduct enquiry on the specific points indicated therein and submit a report, no effective steps whatsoever have been taken till date. According to learned counsel, the continued failure of the authorities to comply with the lawful directions of their superior officers for more than four years is per-se illegal, arbitrary and wholly unsustainable in the eye of law. It is contended that the respondents, by deliberately keeping the matter pending, are permitting an illegality to perpetuate and are depriving the petitioners from securing correction of revenue entries relating to the ancestral property of their predecessor-in- interest. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the report dated 03.12.2021 submitted by respondent No.3 had already recorded findings favourable to the petitioners by observing that omission of the name of the petitioners’ mother from the revenue records was erroneous and required rectification. However, instead of concluding the proceedings within a reasonable period, the respondent authorities have chosen to sit tight over the matter without assigning any legally sustainable justification. It is argued that the respondents are attempting to take undue advantage of the erroneous revenue entries and their own inaction, thereby enabling encroachment and usurpation of the petitioners’ lawful 6 property rights. Learned counsel submits that such lethargic and indifferent attitude on the part of public authorities is contrary to settled principles of administrative fairness and good governance and cannot be countenanced in law. 5. It is also argued that the explanation sought to be offered by the respondent authorities regarding delay in conducting enquiry pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2021 is wholly unacceptable and contrary to public policy. According to learned counsel, once a competent authority had already directed further enquiry, the subordinate authority was under a statutory obligation to carry out the same expeditiously. The deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued by superior officers for several years demonstrates complete disregard to the rule of law and reflects malice in law as well as arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel would submit that the conduct of respondent No.4 in not acting upon the directions of higher authorities for such an inordinate period clearly exhibits administrative high-handedness and an attitude as if the authority is above the law. 6. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest have been suffering for more than two decades on account of incorrect revenue entries and the authorities have utterly failed to discharge their legal obligation to rectify the same despite repeated representations and repeated follow-up before the revenue authorities. It is submitted that the 7 inaction of the respondents directly infringes the constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also offends the mandate of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. According to learned counsel, the arbitrary deprivation of enjoyment of property through administrative inaction amounts to violation of constitutional and human rights in their broader sense. It is thus contended that the present case involves an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing the present petition, confines the relief to a limited extent and submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to conduct the enquiry afresh and submit a fresh report in compliance with the directions issued by the Collector vide order dated 13.12.2021, within a stipulated period, so that the grievance of the petitioners relating to the erroneous revenue entries may be examined and decided in accordance with law. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that since the petitioners are pressing only a limited prayer, the respondent authorities have no objection if an appropriate direction is issued by this Court, and further submits that the concerned authority 8 shall consider and decide the matter and submit the requisite report within a reasonable and stipulated time frame strictly in accordance with law. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the grievance of the petitioners that despite issuance of specific directions by the Collector, Bastar vide order dated 13.12.2021, the concerned revenue authorities have not conducted the enquiry nor submitted the report for a considerable long period of time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served by directing the competent authority to conclude the pending exercise within a time bound manner. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioners are pressing only a limited prayer seeking compliance of the order already passed by the superior revenue authority. 11. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to approach the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) along with a certified copy of this order and all relevant documents, representations and revenue papers in support of their claim within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon such application being filed, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall proceed to undertake the enquiry in terms of the 9 directions issued by the Collector, Bastar vide order dated 13.12.2021 and shall examine all relevant aspects, records and materials pertaining to the dispute and thereafter prepare and forward the requisite report, as directed pursuant to the earlier report dated 03.12.2021. 12. It is further directed that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and the competent authority shall take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh