1 CGHC010420182023 2026:CGHC:36679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 234 of 2024 1 - Kalyan Diwan S/o Shri Baldev Aged About 65 Years R/o Palat Para, Post - Mohlai, Mungapadar, Kondagaon, District - Konadgaon, Chhattisgrh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Collector, Kondagaon District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Gram Panchayat - Mungapadar, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat - Mungapadar, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House Officer, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Shrivas, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/08/2026 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 authority to consider case of the RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 petitioner and pass appropriate order, within stipulated period. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been residing at Gram Panchayat Mungapadar, District Kondagaon, for the last 40–45 years, where his father had constructed a residential house over part of Khasra No.180/1. It is submitted that, from time to time, the Gram Panchayat passed resolutions permitting the extension and additional construction of the said house. In particular, on 02.05.2006, the Gram Panchayat permitted the petitioner to undertake additional construction for the purpose of a shop, and thereafter, another resolution was passed in his favour on 16.07.2012. It is further submitted that, in October 2022, certain villagers allegedly abused the petitioner and damaged his boundary enclosure, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted a complaint before respondent No.4 on 30.10.2022; however, no effective action was taken thereon. Learned counsel further submits that, subsequently, respondent No.3, vide letter dated 08.10.2023, directed the petitioner to remove the kitchen and other constructions, which action is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks a direction to the concerned respondent authorities to consider his case and take an appropriate decision within a stipulated period. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that no interference by this Court is warranted in the matter. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, in particular, the fact that when the matter was listed before this Court on 18.01.2024, no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, and further considering the passage of considerable time thereafter, no effective relief can now be granted to the petitioner in the present proceedings. Consequently, the present petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. 6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application/petition in case exigency arises. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat