Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4073 (CHH)

MAHANT LAKHAN MUNI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/1512/2026 · 2026-04-08

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:16291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1512 of 2026 Mahant Lakhan Muni S/o Shri Rikhi Lal Nishad Aged About 56 Years R/o Kabir Kuli Seva Samiti Society, Tarekela, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - Nayab Tahsildar Up Tahsil Pirda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 6 - Gopal Das S/o Loknath Sidar R/o Village Saraipatera, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 09-04-2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to take decision over the representation of petitioner dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) and representation dated 03.03.2026 (Annexure P-6). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry over the subject land and act upon the enquiry report dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P- 5) and record name of society Kabir Kuti Seva Ashram Samiti over the subject land, which is presently in the name of respondent No.6. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to take action against the private respondents over complaint dated 03.03.2026 (Annexure P-6). 10.4 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the Kabir Kuti Seva Samiti is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1973. Annexure P-1 is a registration certificate dated 09.09.2024. The Kabir Kuti Seva Samiti was established in the year, 1929 and at that time 12 acres of land was donated to the Ashram by one Rai Singh Gond, Samer Singh and Ghasiram Soura bearing khasra No.60, 192/2, 192/3, 3 195/2, 79/2, 80/2, 242/1 (New Khasra No.54, 56, 76, 78, 79, 838) admeasuring total area 4.400 hectare. That time the Ashram was managed by Sukhdeo. Gopal Das (respondent No.6) was his student, therefore, he used to manage the aforesaid property, but respondent No.6/Gopal Das fraudulently/illegally recorded aforesaid land in his name in revenue record as at that time Ashram was not registered, but aforesaid lands are still in possession of Ashram Kabir Kuti Seva Samiti, therefore, the petitioner filed various applications and last application is Annexure P-6 dated 03.03.2026 to Collector, Mahasamund to record aforesaid land in the name of Kabir Seva Ashram Samiti. Learned counsel would further submit that this petition may be disposed of directing respondent No.2/Collector, Manasamund to decide Annexure P-6 and earlier representations within stipulated period. 3. Learned State counsel has no objection to allow the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the limited prayer of the petitioner, without going into merits of the case, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2/Collector, Mahasamund to decide application Annexure P/6 dated 03.03.2026 in accordance with law, filed by the petitioner along with his earlier applications as early as possible preferably within ‘60 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction the petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Vasant