1 2026:CGHC:24282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2766 of 2026 1 - Rewa Ram Sahu S/o Late Sita Ram Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Suhela, Post Office And P S - Suhela Tehsil - Simga, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Niranjan Verma S/o Late Khamhan Lal Verma, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Suhela, Post Office And P S - Suhela Tehsil - Simga, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G . 3 - Ishwar Lal Verma S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Verma Aged About 83 Years R/o Village- Suhela, Post Office And P S - Suhela Tehsil - Simga, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G . 4 - Satish S/o Late Ramadhin Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Suhela, Post Office And P S - Suhela Tehsil - Simga, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G . 5 - Surendra Singh S/o Late Devi Singh Thakur Aged About 67 Years R/o Village- Suhela, Post Office And P S - Suhela Tehsil - Simga, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G . ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Officer Simga, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent(s) 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. GA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. Petitioners have filed this petition with following reliefs: “10. RELIEF'S SOUGHT -: 10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash / set-aside the impugned order dated 30/3/26 and remand the matter back to the Collector for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case and of disputed land for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 2. Vide order dated 26.03.2025 in WPC No.1998/2022, this Court has passed the following order: “5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the submissions made by the parties, the petitioners are directed to make a fresh application for redressal of their grievance along with all the relevant documents before the concerned Collector annexing all the documents 3 which has been annexed with this petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the concerned Collector, in turn, shall consider and decide the said application/representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, while passing appropriate orders, within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said application/representation. 6. With this observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though there was specific direction to the petitioners by this Court to file the application within two weeks, but due to some unavoidable circumstances the petitioners could not file the said application within the prescribed time of two weeks and they have filed the said application on 16.12.2025 after delay of 255 days, however, they have filed an application for condonation of delay. The concerned Collector has dismissed/rejected the said application on the ground of delay and laches stating that the High Court has passed the order directing the petitioners to file an application within two weeks, however, it has been filed with an inordinate delay of 255 days, as such, it has not been considered. Hence, the petitioners has came-up before this Court with above prayer/reliefs. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the Collector concerned has 4 rightly dismissed/rejected the application of the petitioners as it has not been filed on stipulated time frame. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of reliefs, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that the Collector concerned has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner as it has not been filed in accordance with the order/direction passed by this Court, however, taking sympathetic consideration and further considering that the petitioners are poor villagers, the instant petition is disposed of while setting-aside order dated 30.03.2026 and by permitting the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the concerned Collector within ‘25 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Collector, in turn, shall consider and decide the said application in accordance with law within a period of ‘03 months’ from the date of receipt of the said application without being influenced by earlier order passed by him. 7. It is made clear that if the application is not filed by the petitioners within prescribed time as directed above, the Collector is not obliged to consider and decide the said application. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.