1 2026:CGHC:16550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1553 of 2026 1 - Prasad Mandal S/o. Late Birendra Mandal Aged About 52 Years R/o.- Village- Chathirama, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Surguja, Division, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, (C.G.) 5 - Tehsildar Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Deputy Registrar Ambikapur Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Anil Kumar Goyal S/o. Sansar Chand Goyal Aged About 56 Years R/o. Kharsia Road, Ambikapur Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 3 Collector, Surguja, to decide the petitioner's application for grant of permission to sell rehabilitation land under Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, dated 28.02.2023, which is pending since three years, within a stipulated time frame, preferably within an outer limit of 15 days; b) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the present case, as emerging from the pleadings and documents placed on record, are that the petitioner is the recorded owner and in possession of agricultural land situated at Village Chathirma, Thana Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), bearing Khasra Nos. 352 and 374/1 admeasuring 0.3400 hectare and 0.1400 hectare respectively, totaling 0.4800 hectare. The said land came into the possession of the petitioner through a family partition, and the petitioner is 3 engaged in cultivation over the same. It is further the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid property devolved upon him by way of succession from his father, late Birendra Mandal, and since then, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner’s name is duly recorded as Bhumiswami/landowner and occupant in the revenue records. It is also stated that the land in question was originally allotted to the petitioner’s father under a rehabilitation lease by the Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, in Revenue Case No. 93/A- 19/1998-99, and thereafter, the same devolved upon the petitioner through family partition. The petitioner submits that due to pressing financial needs, including repayment of loans incurred for the medical treatment of his wife and for supporting the business of his son, he decided to sell a portion of the said land, namely Khasra No. 352 measuring 0.3400 hectare (85 dismil). Accordingly, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the said land for a total consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-, out of which an advance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has already been received, and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- is to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed before the Sub- Registrar, Ambikapur, subject to grant of requisite permission by the competent authority. It is further stated that since the land in question is a rehabilitation lease land, prior permission for its transfer is required under Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh 4 Land Revenue Code. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 28.02.2023 before the Collector, Surguja seeking permission to sell the land. The said application was registered as Revenue Proceeding No. 202305021700067 for the year 2022-23 (Class A-21) and was forwarded to the Tehsildar, Ambikapur for necessary inquiry and report. The petitioner further submits that in the course of the proceedings, the Tehsildar caused publication of a public notice in a daily newspaper inviting objections, and thereafter, the concerned authorities including Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as well as the Deputy Registrar, Ambikapur (Respondent No. 6), submitted their reports during the years 2023–2024 recommending grant of permission for sale of the land. Despite completion of all procedural formalities and submission of favorable reports, the grievance of the petitioner is that the application for grant of permission is still pending before the Collector, Surguja since the year 2022–23 and has not been decided till date. It is contended that such inaction on the part of the respondent authority is causing serious prejudice and financial hardship to the petitioner and his family, especially in light of their urgent need for funds. The petitioner has also submitted several applications seeking early hearing and disposal of the matter, but no action has been taken thereon. Aggrieved by the inaction and delay on the part of the respondent authorities in deciding the 5 application for permission to sell the land, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has moved an application seeking permission to sell a portion of his land which was originally obtained under a rehabilitation scheme, for which prior permission under Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is mandatorily required. It is contended that such application was duly filed before the competent authority as far back as on 24.03.2023, however, despite lapse of more than two years, the same has not been decided till date, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. It is further submitted that the inaction on the part of Respondent No. 3 in keeping the application pending for an inordinate period is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel argues that once all statutory formalities have been completed, including submission of inquiry reports, recording of statements, and receipt of favourable recommendations from the competent authorities, the Collector is under a legal obligation to pass a reasoned order within a reasonable time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the unexplained delay in deciding the application amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the authority and defeats the very object of Section 165(7-B) of the Code. It is contended that the petitioner is a recorded landowner 6 and there exists no legal impediment in granting permission for sale of the land, especially when all procedural requirements have already been fulfilled. It is also urged that the delay in decision- making is causing grave financial prejudice to the petitioner, who is in dire need of funds for medical treatment and repayment of loans. Such prolonged inaction is adversely affecting the petitioner’s right to livelihood and dignified life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the application preferred by the petitioner is under active consideration before the competent authority and the same has not been deliberately kept pending. It is contended that the matter involves procedural scrutiny and compliance of statutory requirements, which has caused some delay. It is further submitted that the concerned authority shall consider and decide the petitioner’s application in accordance with law within a reasonable time. Learned State counsel thus assures this Court that the application shall be decided shortly. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the limited grievance of the petitioner pertains to non-consideration of his application dated 28.02.2023 submitted before the Collector, Surguja, seeking permission to sell the land in question under Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 7 6. It is not in dispute that the said application has been pending for a considerable period of time despite completion of necessary procedural formalities and submission of reports by the concerned authorities. This Court takes note of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the application has remained undecided for more than two years, thereby causing serious financial hardship to the petitioner, who is in urgent need of funds. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has already complied with the requisite procedures and that the matter has been processed at various levels. At the same time, learned State counsel has submitted that the application is under consideration and shall be decided shortly in accordance with law. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the limited nature of relief sought, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending application within a stipulated time frame. Needless to say, any statutory authority vested with the power to decide such application is expected to act within a reasonable time and pass an order in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority/Collector, Surguja to consider and decide the petitioner’s application dated 28.02.2023 for grant of permission to sell the land under Section 165(7-B) of the 8 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. It is further directed that while deciding the application, the authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge