1 2026:CGHC:18960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1954 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Sahu Son Of Late Khorbahra Ram Sahu Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Mopka, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 5 - Tahsildar Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sayed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Mr. S.S. Bhagel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/04/2026 ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.04.28 13:50:29 +0530 2 1. This petitioner has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- (i)May this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to decide complaint application of the petitioner and to take appropriate legal action for illegal encroachment over the land within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the recorded owner and in peaceful possession of land bearing Khasra No. 1828/2, admeasuring 0.60 dismil, situated at Village Mopka, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), where he has been carrying out agricultural activities. It is alleged that certain unauthorized persons are attempting to forcibly encroach upon the said land and interfere with his peaceful possession. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a complaint/application before the concerned respondent authorities seeking action against such illegal encroachment, however, no action has been taken till date, nor has the said complaint been decided, resulting in continuous harassment and apprehension of irreparable loss. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to decide his complaint expeditiously in accordance with law. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not deciding the petitioner’s complaint and in not conducting demarcation proceedings is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the land in question is ancestral property of the petitioner and he has been in peaceful possession thereof while carrying out agricultural activities, however, certain unauthorized persons are interfering with his possession and attempting to encroach upon the same, causing harassment and mental distress. Despite submission of a complaint seeking appropriate action and demarcation, the respondent authorities have failed to take any steps or conclude the proceedings, which have remained pending since the year 2025, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner reserves his right to raise additional grounds and to place relevant documents on record at an appropriate stage. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present petition is premature and devoid of merit, as the matter is already under consideration before the competent authorities in accordance with law. It is contended that due procedure is being followed and any delay is attributable to administrative processes and not to any deliberate inaction. The allegations of violation of 4 principles of natural justice are denied, and it is submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions advanced, particularly the objection raised by learned State counsel regarding maintainability, and the limited prayer made by the petitioner for expeditious disposal of his pending application, this Court, without entering into the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the competent respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application/complaint expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, within a reasonable period. It is further directed that a reasoned and speaking order be passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s) this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Arpan