1 2026:CGHC:26012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3099 of 2026 1 - Murari Lal Gupta S/o Shri Narsingh Narayan Gupta Aged About 64 Years R/o Village - Gunarbod P H N 35, Tahsil And District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Jyoti Gupta W/o Shri Uday Chand Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 25.06.2026 1. Heard. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the inaction and failure on the part of the revenue authorities in deciding the remanded proceedings pending before the Tehsildar concerning the subject Abadi land, despite specific directions issued by the appellate authority, and further being apprehensive of forcible interference in his long-standing possession by Respondent No. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has been in continuous, open, peaceful and settled possession of the subject land since the year 2000 and has also raised construction thereon, and though his rights stand recognized in revenue proceedings and official revenue records, the competent authority has failed to pass a final order after remand, thereby exposing the petitioner to imminent threat of dispossession and creation of third-party rights at the instance of Respondent No. 5. Hence, the present petition. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record which relates to the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ of Mandamus 3 directing respondent Tehsildar to conclude the remanded proceedings pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2026 within a time-bound period. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondent No.5 from transferring, alienating, selling, gifting, mortgaging, leasing or creating any third-party rights over the disputed property till final adjudication of the dispute. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 4. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is in continuous, open, peaceful and settled possession of the subject Abadi land since the year 2000. During the course of such possession, the petitioner raised construction over the said land and has been enjoying the same as its lawful occupant without any interruption from any quarter. The petitioner’s possession and status over the land also came to be recognized in revenue proceedings, wherein Bhumiswami rights were acknowledged in favour of the petitioner in Revenue Case No. 18/31-66/2016-17. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s possession over the subject land stands corroborated from the official revenue records as well. In particular, the Patwari report prepared in the year 2024 specifically acknowledged the petitioner’s possession over the land as well as 4 the construction existing thereon. Thus, the long-standing possession of the petitioner is not only a matter of fact but also stands reflected from the revenue record maintained by the authorities themselves. Respondent No. 5 is claiming right over the subject land on the strength of an alleged sale deed dated 06.05.2002 said to have been executed by one Ramayan. However, despite the alleged execution of the said sale deed in the year 2002, Respondent No. 5 never obtained actual physical possession over the land and remained completely silent for nearly twenty-four years. At no point of time did Respondent No. 5 assert possession over the subject land or take any effective steps for mutation or enforcement of any alleged right arising from the said sale deed. It is submitted that the dispute resurfaced only when proceedings were initiated before the Tehsildar, culminating in an order dated 17.02.2026, whereby the petitioner’s name was directed to be deleted from the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the said order, the matter was carried in appeal before the learned SDO (Revenue), who, vide order dated 13.04.2026, was pleased to set aside/remand the matter and directed the Tehsildar to reconsider the matter after examining eight material issues relevant for proper adjudication of the controversy. Pursuant to the order of remand passed by the learned SDO (Revenue), the requisite report/documents were received by the Tehsildar on 22.04.2026. However, despite the matter having been remanded for fresh consideration and despite the relevant material being 5 available on record, the Tehsildar has failed to pass any final order till date. The proceedings are thus being kept pending without any justification, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings and in absence of any final adjudication by the competent authority, the petitioner is under constant apprehension that Respondent No. 5 may interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession, attempt to dispossess him forcibly, or create third-party rights over the subject land on the basis of the alleged sale deed. The inaction on the part of the authorities in deciding the remanded proceedings has therefore left the petitioner remediless and exposed to grave and irreparable injury. In these circumstances, as the revenue authorities have failed to decide the remanded proceedings within a reasonable time and have also failed to protect the petitioner’s long-standing settled possession over the subject land, the petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a revenue proceeding is pending consideration before the concerned SDO (Revenue), Bemetara, and as such, he is seeking a limited relief that the SDO (Revenue), Bemetara, may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the revenue proceedings, as referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, are already pending before the concerned SDO (Revenue), 6 Bemetara, and therefore, if this Court is inclined to dispose of the petition, an appropriate direction may be issued to the said authority to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the revenue proceedings are stated to be pending before the SDO (Revenue), Bemetara, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the said authority to consider and decide the pending proceedings/application of the petitioner expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned authority shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha