1 2026:CGHC:23934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2592 of 2026 1 - Ramjeet S/o Duhan Aged About 65 Years Caste Gond R/o Village- Amdi Tahsil Lundra (Dhourpur) District -Surguja (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector District Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.). 3 - Tahsildar Lundra (Dhourpur) District Surguja (C.G.). 4 - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Amdi Tahsil Lundra (Dhourpur) District Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 16/06/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the application dated 07.05.2026 filed by the petitioner for grant of patta of land bearing 0.020 Hectare out of land bearing Khasra No. 390 Rakba 0.9380 Hectare situated at Village Amdi Tahsil Lundra (Dhourpur) District Surguja (C.G), in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondents from disturbing the possession of the petitioner on land admeasuring 0.020 Hectare out of land bearing Khasra No. 390 Rakba 0.9380 Hectare situated at Village Amdi Tahsil Lundra (Dhourpur) District Surguja (C.G) till the application filed by the petitioner is not decided.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any particular order but is seeking a direction from this Court to respondent No. 2, to decide the application dated 7.5.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the pending application, he is having no objection to the limited 3 prayer. His pending representation will be considered in accordance with law. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the concerned respondent No. 2 to consider/decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law/rules/regulations and in an objective manner as expeditiously as possible within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat