1 / 6 CGHC010068362021 2026:CGHC:36125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1745 of 2021 Charanjeet Singh Son Of Shri Kartar Singh Aged About 76 Years Resident Of Opposite Prince Food Square, Neta Ji Hotel, Netaji Chowk, Katora Talab, Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tahsildar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Naib Tahsildar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Vijendra Yadav Son Of Late Lalluram Yadav Resident Of Near Shani Temple, Khamhardin, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.08.18 14:23:53 +0530 2 / 6 For Petitioner :Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For State :Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. Facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are that petitioner purchased land bearing Khasra Nos. 207/16, 207/14 and 207/12, admeasuring 0.113 hectare, 0.020 hectare and 0.020 hectare respectively, situated at Telibandha, Tahsil and District Raipur, by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.07.1987 from Surujmal, Jhumuklal and Suhagabai. Pursuant to the purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the said land, and his name was duly mutated in the relevant revenue records. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 submitted a complaint before respondent No. 2/Collector in respect of certain lands, including the land bearing Khasra No. 207/14 belonging to the petitioner. The matter was thereafter referred to the Tahsildar, Raipur, for enquiry, whereupon proceedings were registered and initiated. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, respondent No. 3, vide order dated 12.09.2019, directed that the land bearing Khasra No. 207/14, admeasuring 0.020 hectare, be recorded in the name of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur Division (Hk-l-), by deleting the name of the petitioner from the revenue records. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 3, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Raipur. Vide order dated 18.09.2019, SDO (R) admitted the appeal and stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 3 / 6 12.09.2019 passed by respondent No. 3. Thereafter, upon hearing the parties, SDO (R) vide its order dated 03.01.2020, partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, set aside the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by respondent No. 3, and remitted the matter to respondent No. 3 for fresh consideration. SDO (R) specifically directed respondent No. 3 to reconsider the matter after examining the record of rights pertaining to the disputed land, the land acquisition records, the sale deeds executed in respect of the disputed land and other relevant revenue documents, and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned landowners, decide the matter in accordance with law. However, despite the order dated 03.01.2020, the matter has neither been proceeded with in accordance with the directions contained therein nor has any substantial progress been made in the proceedings pending before respondent No. 4. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking following reliefs: “a. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents concerned pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. b. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent No 4 to ensure compliance of the order dated 3.1.2020 passed by the respondent SDO, delete name of the Road, Executive Engineer, PWD, Raipur against land bearing Khasra no.207/14 and in its 4 / 6 place record the name of petitioner ie. to restore the position as was existing prior to the order dated 12.9.2019, in the interest of justice. c. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent No.4 to decide the Case No.29/B-121/Year 2018-19 pending before him, within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. d. Cost of the proceedings. e. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject land and his name was duly recorded in the revenue records. The order dated 12.09.2019 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the name of the petitioner was directed to be deleted, was assailed by the petitioner in appeal and the same was set aside by SDO (R) vide order dated 03.01.2020, with a direction to the competent authority to decide the matter afresh after considering the relevant revenue record and acquisition record and after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. However, despite lapse of considerable time, the said order has not been complied with and Revenue Case No.29/B-121/2018-19 is still pending before respondent No.4. Learned counsel, therefore, confines his prayer to a direction to respondent No.4 to decide the pending case expeditiously, within specified period. 5 / 6 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents does not oppose the limited prayer made by the petitioner for a direction to respondent No.4 to decide the aforesaid pending proceedings within a time-bound period. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Admittedly, Revenue Case No.29/B-121/2018-19 is pending before respondent No.4 and the matter has remained pending for a considerable period. SDO (R) had already passed an order dated 03.01.2020 remitting the matter for fresh consideration with specific directions regarding examination of the relevant records and affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. 6. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that the proceedings are pending since the year 2018-19, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to conclude and decide Revenue Case No.29/B-121/2018-19 expeditiously. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to decide Revenue Case No.29/B-121/2018-19, pending before him, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the directions contained in the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by SDO (R). Respondent No.4 shall afford due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all other 6 / 6 concerned parties before passing the final order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, and respondent No.4 shall decide the pending proceedings independently on their own merits. Sd/Sd Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen