1 CGHC010353862026 2026:CGHC:39792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4634 of 2026 1 - Shatruhan Patel S/o Brijlal Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Narayanpur, Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Nawagarh, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Bisahu Sahu, S/o Banshi Sahu, Sarpanch Village Panchayat - Narayanpur, Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to act upon the representation of the petitioner submitted before it. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the appeal pending before the respondent no. 2 in case no. 146 of the year 2022-2023 within stipulated period of time. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any particular order, but is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No. 2 in not deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. It is submitted that the said appeal has been pending since 01.09.2025 and, after issuance of the show-cause notice dated 07.10.2025, respondent No. 2 has failed to proceed with and decide the matter within the period prescribed under the statute. Learned counsel further submits that, in terms of Section 40(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, an appeal preferred under the said provision is required to be decided by the competent authority within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice. However, despite the lapse of more than 330 days, i.e., approximately 11 months, respondent No. 2 has failed to decide the appeal till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner has, 3 on several occasions, submitted representations before respondent No. 2 requesting that the pending appeal be taken up and decided expeditiously; however, despite such repeated representations, no effective steps have been taken in the matter. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that appropriate directions may be issued to the concerned authority to consider and decide the pending appeal within a stipulated period, in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly considering the limited grievance raised by the petitioner with regard to the pendency of the proceedings under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the concerned SDO (Revenue) to consider and decide the application/appeal filed under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, strictly in accordance with law and by following the prescribed procedure, within a stipulated period. While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the concerned authority shall ensure that all the parties 4 concerned are afforded due and reasonable opportunity of hearing before any order is passed. 6. It is made clear that merely because this Court has not considered it necessary to issue notice to respondent No. 3, namely, the Sarpanch, in the present petition, which has been filed only for seeking expeditious disposal of the pending proceedings, the same shall not be construed to mean that the concerned authority is not required to issue appropriate notice to respondent No. 3 or to afford him/her due opportunity of hearing. Since the allegations in the proceedings under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 are against respondent No. 3, the concerned authority shall ensure that respondent No. 3 is duly noticed and is afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing before the matter is finally decided. 7. The concerned SDO (Revenue) is, accordingly, directed to take up and decide the application/appeal filed under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and after following the due process of law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the concerned authority shall decide the matter independently, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. 5 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat