1 2026:CGHC:23975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1929 of 2022 Mohammad Imran Khan S/o Mohammad Irfan Khan, Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Civil Line, Behind State Bank Of India, Manendragarh, Tehsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayat Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralya, Police Station & Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattigarh. 2 Collector, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Bundeli, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. NK Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Arham Siddique, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/06/2026 1. Heard. SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.06.18 13:54:35 +0530 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the possession of the respondent authorities pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. (ii)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 24.3.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3/SDOR, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya. (iii) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation. 3. At the outset, Dr. NK Shukla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already constructed a poultry farm on his own land and there is no allegation of encroachment upon the land of any other person or the State Government and thus, the construction stands concluded. He further submits that the petitioner has raised the construction after securing a loan and obtaining the requisite permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat. 4. Per contra, Dr. Arham Siddique, learned counsel for the State submits that the stay order dated 24.3.2022 challenged before this Court, has expired by efflux of time and no further extension has been granted by the concerned SDO. 5. In view of the submissions that the poultry farm is already operational and the impugned stay order has effluxed, this Court is of the opinion that nothing remains for adjudication in the present petition. 6. Consequently, without entering into the merits of the case, and solely on the ground that the impugned stay order has spent its force and the construction stands concluded, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay