1 2026:CGHC:18308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1818 of 2026 Harsh Robinsion S/o Hency Surendra Robinsion, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ameyvihar Colony, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Saraswati Sinku W/o Sudhansu Sinku, Aged About 62 Years R/o Deyaposi, Post Kochra, Jhinkapani, Tehsil Hadgamaniya, District Sinhbhoom (Jharkhand), Through The General Power Of Attorney Holder Virendra Kushwaha Son Of Shri J.P.S. Kushwaha, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No. N.36, Ameyvihar Colony Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 22.04.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner assails the inaction on the part of respondent No. 2 in deciding Revenue Case No. 1099/2024, pending since 2024, and seeks a direction for its YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.22 17:48:06 +0530 2 expeditious disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no.2 to conclude the proceeding of revenue case no. 1099/2024 pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur in Smt. Saraswati Sinku Vs. Harsh Robinsion within a stipulated time of 90 days. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not challenge any specific order or proceeding; rather, it is confined to seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 to act in accordance with law and expeditiously decide Revenue Case No.1099/2024, which has been pending since the year 2024. The prolonged inaction on the part of the authority has rendered the proceedings ineffective and has caused undue hardship to the petitioner. It is submitted that the proceedings initiated under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) are summary in nature and are required to be 3 decided with promptitude, primarily on the question of possession. However, despite lapse of considerable time and multiple reports having been called for, no effective progress has been made, and the matter continues to linger without any justifiable reason. It is further submitted that such inordinate delay is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner’s right to property, as the status quo order coupled with pendency of the proceedings is preventing the petitioner from peacefully enjoying the property. Hence, a direction for time-bound disposal of the case is warranted. 3 Learned State counsel submits that the matter pending before respondent No. 2 shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 4 Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the present petition is confined to a limited grievance regarding the inaction and delay on the part of respondent No. 2 in deciding Revenue Case No. 1099/2024, pending since 19.09.2024, as is evident from the order-sheets filed by the petitioner. 5 Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforesaid case strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 4 6 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in early disposal of the proceedings. 7 Learned State Counsel is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raipur, along with an appropriate covering memo, with a request to ensure that any case filed in the matter is considered and decided expeditiously. It is further made clear that continued pendency of the matter before the concerned authority would be inappropriate. 8 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh