1 CGHC010301512026 2026:CGHC:40528 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4114 of 2026 1 - Mahesh Kukreja, S/o- Jairam Kukreja, Aged About 54 Years R/o- Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Anusha Kukreja, W/o- Mahesh Kukreja, Aged About 50 Years R/o- Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Tehsildar (Nazul), Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate. For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/09/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek a direction for compliance with the orders dated 30.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur, and further seek RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.17 18:22:06 +0530 2 expeditious disposal of the proceedings pending before the Tehsildar (Nazul), Raipur, in respect of the petitioners’ application dated 26.03.2010 for renewal of lease. As such, they are seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to Respondent authorities to expeditiously decide the application for renewal of lease dated 26.03.2010 filed by the Petitioners/Applicants (Annexure P/3) pending before Respondent namely Collector, Raipur (C.G.), with respect to Mohalla-Bairanbaazar, Block No. 18, Plot No. 17/2, area 14810 sqft. within period of 03 months in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings pending before the Tehsildar (Nazul), Raipur, have already been initiated and, therefore, prays that the concerned authority may be directed to consider and expedite the same in accordance with law, preferably within some stipulated time. 3 3. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and that appropriate direction may be issued in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of record and the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds it just and proper to direct the concerned authority to consider and conclude the pending proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. 5. With this observations and direction, this petition stands disposed of. 6. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju