Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Santram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Home
Chhattisgarh HC
2024
Santram Verma Vs State of ChhattisgarhSantram Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Disposed¶28

Santram Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2024WPC/2574/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPC No. 2574 of 2024; 2024:CGHC:33617; Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; 02/09/2024; Section 133 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959; direction to Tahsildar (respondent No.3) to decide pending representation dated 1.4.2024; applications dated 1.4.2024 and 30.4.2024 before Tehsildar/SDO; 8-week timeline; mandamus-type direction; writ not pressed on merits; Gariyaband / Fingeshwar / Rajim / Sirrikhurd; Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd sarpanch dispute; disposed with direction; certified copy as per rules; no quantum; no precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 (Tahsildar, Tahsil Fingeshwar) to decide the petitioner's representation dated 1.4.2024 expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order; certified copy as per rules. The writ petition was not pressed on merits.

Why is it important?

Taking into account the circumstances of the case and that the petitioner had already submitted a representation before respondent No.3 (Tahsildar) on 1.4.2024, the Court directed respondent No.3 to take a decision on that representation expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. ¶28

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.3 (Tahsildar, Tahsil Fingeshwar) to decide the petitioner's representation dated 1.4.2024 expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order; certified copy as per rules. The writ petition was not pressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No.2 & 3 should be directed to take a decision, within a specified time, on the petitioner's pending application/representation (filed on 1.4.2024 and 30.4.2024, stated to be under Section 133 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959).

Court's answer

Taking into account the circumstances of the case and that the petitioner had already submitted a representation before respondent No.3 (Tahsildar) on 1.4.2024, the Court directed respondent No.3 to take a decision on that representation expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Neutral citation: 2024:CGHC:33617), WPC No. 2574 of 2024, decided 02/09/2024 by Parth Prateem Sahu, J. (Single Bench). The writ petition was not pressed on merits; the petitioner confined himself to seeking a direction to respondents No.2 (SDO, Revenue) and No.3 (Tahsildar, Tahsil Fingeshwar) to decide his written applications dated 1.4.2024 and 30.4.2024, stated by learned State counsel to have been made before respondent No.2 under Section 133 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (under which the Tehsildar is the competent authority). The Court, noting that a representation dated 1.4.2024 was already pending before respondent No.3, directed the Tahsildar to decide the representation expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within eight weeks from receipt of the order, and ordered certified copy as per rules. Petition disposed of.

A

Page No.1

2024:CGHC:33617

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 2574 of 2024

1- Santram Verma S/o Dhanaram Verma Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Sirrikhurd, P.S. - Fingeshwar, Tahsil - Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

2- The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),Gariyaband

3- The Tahsildar TahsilFingeshwar

4 - Tikesh Sahu S/o Late Sonsay Sahu Sarpanch Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd Tahsil-Rajim

Tahsil-Rajim

5- Vijay Kadra S/o Parasram Kadra Old Sarpanch, R/o Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd,Tahsil-Rajim

6 - Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd Through Secretary, Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd Tahsil- Rajim

... Respondents

For Petitioner :Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate. For State :Mr. Prateek Tiwari, PL.

S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

02/09/2024

NISHA DUBEY

Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Date: 2024.09.04 10:18:33 +0530

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for petitioner submits that as the petitioner has already placed his grievance before the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer by way of filing

Page No.2

a written application on 1.4.2024 & 30.4.2024, and hence direction be issued to respondents No.2 & 3 to take decision on the application, at the earliest, within specified time.

Learned State counsel submit that as the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits, only seeking a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to take decision on the pending application/representation, he is having no objection. However, he submits that the provision under which application is made before respondent No.2 is under Section 133 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, under which Tehsildar is the competent authority.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised in this writ petition and also the fact that the petitioner has already submitted representation before respondent No.3 on 1.4.2024, respondent No.3 is directed to take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Certified copy as per rules.

Nisha

Sd/( Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether respondents No.2 & 3 should be directed to take a decision, within a specified time, on the petitioner's pending application/representation (filed on 1.4.2024 and 30.4.2024, stated to be under Section 133 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959).¶25
The court held
Taking into account the circumstances of the case and that the petitioner had already submitted a representation before respondent No.3 (Tahsildar) on 1.4.2024, the Court directed respondent No.3 to take a decision on that representation expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.ratio¶28

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959133¶26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner had already placed his grievance before the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer by filing written applications on 1.4.2024 and 30.4.2024; he prayed for a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to decide those applications.¶25
Prior proceeding
A representation dated 1.4.2024 submitted by the petitioner was pending before respondent No.3 (Tahsildar); the State raised no objection to the petitioner not pressing the writ petition on merits.¶28
Prior proceeding
Per learned State counsel, the petitioner did not press the writ petition on merits, confining his request to a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to decide the pending application/representation.¶26

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Santram Verma S/o Dhanaram Verma Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Sirrikhurd, P.S. - Fingeshwar, Tahsil - Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh¶6
Shreshtha Gupta
respondent
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh¶9
Prateek Tiwari
respondent
The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gariyaband¶10
respondent
The Tahsildar, Tahsil Fingeshwar¶11
respondent
Tikesh Sahu S/o Late Sonsay Sahu, Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd, Tahsil-Rajim¶12
respondent
Vijay Kadra S/o Parasram Kadra, Old Sarpanch, R/o Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd, Tahsil-Rajim¶14
respondent
Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd Through Secretary, Village Panchayat Sirrikhurd, Tahsil-Rajim¶15

Coram

AI extract

Parth Prateem Sahuauthor¶19

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Chhattisgarh HC
Decided on: 1 Sept 2024 · September
Registered: 10 May 2024
Case no.: WPC/2574/2024
CNR: CGHC010161772024
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Case type: WPC

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Parth Prateem Sahu

Dr. Madhuri Krishnani Vs State of Chhattisgarh
29 Aug 2024
Ramdas Pataila Vs the State of Chhattisgarh
29 Aug 2024
Indrajeet Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh
29 Aug 2024
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs M/S S.S. Mining Jv Company
1 Sept 2024
Suresh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh
1 Sept 2024
Shivani Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh
1 Sept 2024

Cite this judgement

Santram Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC/2574/2024 (CG), decided on 1 September 2024.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959133

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Petitioner had already placed his grievance before the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer by filing written applications on 1.4.2024 and 30.4.2024; he prayed for a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to decide those applications.
A representation dated 1.4.2024 submitted by the petitioner was pending before respondent No.3 (Tahsildar); the State raised no objection to the petitioner not pressing the writ petition on merits.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Parth Prateem Sahu

Parties & counsel