1 2026:CGHC:20420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2156 of 2026 Hemlata Sharma W/o Shri Madan Mohan Sharma Aged About 55 Years D/o Late Dhuji Ram Panday Aged Abuat 55years R/o Village Panda Paraswani, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary (Revenue) Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh And D.K.S. Bhawn Parisar 2 - Commissioner Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Naib Tehsildar Samda (Arang) District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Pawan Kumar Pandey S/o Late Prahalad Panday R/o. Village Paraswani (Panda), Tahsil Arang, Disrict- Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Laxman Prasad R/o. Village Paraswani (Panda), Tahsil Arang, Disrict- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Satendra Tripathi and Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocates. For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01.05.2026 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.01 17:57:17 +0530 2 pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the Order Dated 23.06.2025 and 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-29 and P-29) and subsequent orders passed by Commissioner Court Raipur by which implementation of the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Additional Collector Raipur has been stayed for 15 days and subsequently been extended continuously in the Revision petition dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-25) as Revenue Case No. 202506970100038 (Pawan Pandey Vs Smt. Hemlata & others) filed by respondent no.6 u/s 50 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 by which he challenged the order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure-23) passed by Additional Collector Raipur by which he has confirmed the order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure-22) passed by the Naib Tehsildar Samoda Arang Raipur in application under section 250 of Chattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 for giving the possession of agricultural land Khasra No. 118 (Rakba 4.36 hectare) Patwari Halka No. 07 in Village Panda Paraswani Panda, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh to the Petitioner which is in illegal possession of respondent no. 6 and 7. 23 25 as 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to decide the Revision petition dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-26) Revenue Case No. 202506970100038 (Pawan Pandey Vs Smt. Hemlata & others) filed by respondent no.6 u/s 3 50 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 by which he challenged the order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure-23) passed by Additional Collector Raipur by which he has confirmed the order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure-22) passed by the Naib Tehsildar Samoda Arang Raipur in application under section 250 of Chattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 for giving the possession of agricultural land Khasra No. 118 (Rakba 4.36 hectare) Patwari Halka No. 07 in Village Panda Paraswani Panda, Tehsil Arang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh to the Petitioner which is in illegal possession of respondent no. 6 and 7. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the Respondentsto ensure the peaceful enjoyment of possession and the Right to Property of the Petitioner in the said agricultural land Khasra No. 118 (Rakba 4.36 hectare) Patwari Halka No. 07 in Village Panda Paraswani Panda, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 10.4 Pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the recorded bhumiswami and absolute owner of the agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 118 (Rakba 4.36 hectare), Patwari Halka No. 07, situated at Village Panda Paraswani, Tehsil Arang, District 4 Raipur (C.G.), and her name is duly reflected in the revenue records. It is further submitted that the petitioner had initially approached the Naib Tehsildar, Arang by filing an application under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for demarcation of the said land, which was allowed and demarcation proceedings were conducted from time to time. Despite repeated objections raised by the private respondents, the competent revenue authorities, after due consideration, rejected such objections on multiple occasions and ultimately the demarcation was carried out in accordance with law, wherein it was found that Respondent No. 6 and 7 are in illegal possession over the petitioner’s land. 3. Learned counsel submits that since the possession of the land was not handed over to the petitioner even after demarcation, she was constrained to initiate proceedings under Section 250 of the Code before the Naib Tehsildar, Samoda, Arang for restoration of possession. During the said proceedings, despite ample opportunities, the private respondents failed to appear and contest the matter, and their right of cross-examination was closed vide order dated 07.04.2025, which was subsequently affirmed by the Additional Collector, Raipur vide order dated 19.06.2025. It is contended that thereafter, the private respondents preferred a revision under Section 50 of the Code before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, on 23.06.2025, wherein an interim stay has been granted and the matter is 5 pending consideration. However, despite lapse of considerable time, the said revision has not been finally adjudicated and the interim order is being extended from time to time, resulting in undue delay in conclusion of proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, thereby depriving the petitioner of the fruits of lawful orders passed in her favour. 4. Learned counsel submits that the limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the proceedings pending before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, in the aforesaid revision be directed to be concluded expeditiously within a stipulated time frame, so that the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code may also reach their logical conclusion and the petitioner may be restored possession of her land, especially in view of the approaching agricultural season. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court be directed the Commissioner, Raipur Division, to decide the pending revision expeditiously and within a time-bound period, preferably within 15 days from today, in accordance with law. 5. Learned State counsel, while not opposing the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that although the matter deserves expeditious consideration, the time frame of 15 days, as prayed for, may not be practically feasible in view of administrative exigencies and procedural requirements involved in adjudication of such revenue matters. It is, therefore, submitted that a 6 reasonable period of at least 45 days may be granted to the Commissioner, Raipur Division, for proper consideration and disposal of the pending revision in accordance with law. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and particularly taking into account that the revision preferred by the private respondents under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 has been pending before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, since 23.06.2025 and interim orders are being extended from time to time, this Court deems it appropriate to direct expeditious disposal of the same. 7. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur is directed to decide the pending revision arising out of the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur, within an outer limit of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved in the case. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, shall decide the pending revision strictly on its own merits, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The 7 Commissioner shall ensure that due and adequate opportunity of hearing is afforded to all the parties concerned before passing a reasoned and speaking order. 10. The private respondents are directed to extend full cooperation in the proceedings before the Commissioner. It is further observed that in the event the private respondents adopt dilatory tactics or fail to participate in the proceedings despite due service, the Commissioner shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, including proceeding ex parte or taking such coercive measures as may be permissible under law to ensure expeditious disposal of the matter. 11. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh