1 2026:CGHC:18517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1935 of 2026 1 - Ramfal S/o Chintaram (Adopted S/o Etwari) Aged About 66 Years R/o Village - Khapri, Tahsil, Pachpedi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub-Divisional Officer Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil - Pachpedi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil - Pachpedi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Tirithram S/o Chaitu R/o Village - Khapri, Tahsil - Pachpedi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Roman S/o Chintaram R/o Village - Khapri, Tahsil - Pachpedi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi in E-Court Case No. 202403071300054/A-6/2023-24. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restore the mutation order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Pachpedi in favour of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold and declare that the appeal preferred by respondents No. 05 & 06 was barred by limitation and ought not to have been entertained. 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.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail alternative remedy available under the law. 3. No objection has been raised from other side. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat