Devmati Vs Commissioner

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:54554

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 5809 of 2025

¶6

Devmati D/o Late Chandan Panika Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Karanpur Post Marsen Dist. Rampur (U.P) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Meenakshi Yadav W/o Ramesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 14/2 Ward No. 18 Subhash Nagar, Lingiyadih, Po South Eastern Coal Limited Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Commissioner Sarguja, Dist. Sarguja Ambikapur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Collector Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Tribuvan Singh S/o Late Badrinath Singh Aged About 68 Years R/o Jail Road Babupara, Ambikapur Po And Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Sarguja (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Jamuna Bai D/o Late Chandan Panika Aged About 65 Years Caste Panika R/o Village And Po Ajabnagar, Police Station Jaynagar Tahsil Lathory Dist. Surajpur (C.G.)

¶13

	...Respondents
For Petitioner :	Mr. Poshan Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 & :	Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate
2-State

¶14

2

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

10.11.2025

¶18

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶19

“10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

¶20

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and issue direction to the respondent no. 1 to conclude the revenue case no. 202412960100025/A21/2024-25 expeditely.

¶21

10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent no. 3 and 4 have field a revision application before the Commissioner, Sarguja, District -Sarguja ,Ambikapur/Respondent no. 1 which is pending consideration since January, 2025. He further contended that the Commissioner/Respondent no. 1 upon hearing the revision has granted ex-parte Interim Relief in favour of applicant therein and the application filed for vacating interim order has been rejected vide order dated 03.04.2025. The case since thereafter is pending consideration. He also submits that as the revision application is pending consideration since January 2025, direction be issued to Commissioner/Respondent no. 2 to decide the pending representation within specified time.

¶23

Learned counsel for State submits that in view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, he is having no objection.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition.

¶25

3

¶26

Considered the submission made by counsel for the respective parties as also Annexure P-5 which is an order dated 03.04.2025, whereby the application filed by petitioner for vacating interim order came to be rejected and thereafter the case was fixed for 22.04.2025 awaiting the records of courts below.

¶27

In the aforementioned facts of the case and taking into consideration period already lapsed i.e. six months from the date of proceedings placed before this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing respondent no. 1/Commissioner to consider and decide pending proceedings in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a further period of 02 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if already not decided.

¶28