1 CGHC010074162022 2026:CGHC:37933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1140 of 2022 Arvind Kumar Pandey S/o Late Vindvasini Kumar Pandey, Aged About 36 Years R/o Sardar Patel Ward, Mungeli, Police Station, Tahsil and District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) Mo.No. 8319583339 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Nazul Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1139 of 2022 Neelmani Pandey S/o Late Kameshwar Kumar Pandey, Aged About 52 Years R/o Sardar Patel Ward, Mungeli, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) Mo. No. 9993602525 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.08.25 16:06:53 +0530 2 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Nazul Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1137 of 2022 Sheelmani Pandey S/o Late Kameshwar Kumar Pandey, Aged About 50 Years R/o Sardar Patel Ward , Mungeli, Police Station Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Mo. No. 9981122570. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management , Mantralaya , Atal Nagar Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nazul Officer, Mungeli , District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) 3 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agarwal, Advocate For Respective Respondents : : Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. The factual matrix as well as the core issue involved in all these writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. In sum and substance, the reliefs claimed in all the writ petitions are same. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 1140 of 2022 is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the above captioned Writ Petitions and in the said petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by respondent No.3 in revenue case no. 202108250800071/A-20(1)/2020-21 between "Arvind Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh" (Annexure-P/1), and further be please to direct to the respondent no. 2 & 3 to allot the question land in favour of petitioner, is in the interest of 4 justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that pursuant to the Government Policy dated 11.9.2019, the petitioner(s) applied for settlement of the land encroached upon by him prior to cut off date i.e. 20.8.2017, fulfilling all requirements specified therein. Although the application was duly filed along with the supporting documents, the concerned authority i.e. - respondent – Nazul Officer, Mungeli dismissed the same vide the impugned order dated 18.1.2022 on the ground that no documents or photographs etc were produced to establish possession or construction prior to 20.8.2017. He submits that a construction already exists on the subject land, wherein the petitioner runs his shop together with the open land; hence, the adverse finding recorded by the Nazul Officer is not in accordance with law. He further submits that in all the petitions, either shops have been erected or physical possession was established over the subject land by the respective petitioners prior to 20.8.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Government Policy dated 11.9.2019 has subsequently been withdrawn vide order dated 23.7.2024 and therefore, no claim for settlement or regularization of the subject land can be entertained thereunder. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 5 despite withdrawal of the said policy, the respondent authorities ought to consider the claim of the petitioner for settlement in accordance with law under the applicable provisions of the Revenue Book Circular (RBC), owing to their long and uninterrupted possession. He further submits that even though the petitioners are not landless persons, their claim is maintainable under the under the relevant circulars. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioners are not landless persons but claim continuous possession over the subject property for a considerable period, this Court deems it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order(s) dated 18.1.2022 in all the writ petitions. The petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent authority i.e. the concerned Collector, by filing a fresh representation. Upon receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall consider and decide the petitioners’ claim afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, after affording them a due opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 18.1.2022 are hereby set-aside. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, having regard to the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular (RBC) as well as the terms of the earlier Circular dated 11.9.2019 (subsequently withdrawn vide order 6 dated 23.7.2024), subject to the petitioners fulfilling the conditions prescribed thereunder. While undertaking such an exercise, the authorities shall also duly consider the long-standing possession of the petitioners. 8. Since the interim orders of status quo were passed by this Court in all the writ petitions on 3.3.2022, the petitioners are directed to submit a copy of this order along with their representation(s) within 15 days from today before the concerned authority. Upon receipt thereof, the competent authority shall decide the application/representation within a period of 60 days. For a period of 60 days or until such final decision is taken by the authority, whichever is earlier, the interim protection granted on 3.3.2022 shall continue to remain in force. 9. With the aforesaid observations, all the Writ Petitions are finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay