Balwan Singh Vs Jitendra Singh Rajput

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:12058

¶3

RUKHSAR BANO

¶4

Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.03.16 10:21:37 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 1095 of 2026

¶8

1 - Balwan Singh S/o Khetau Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Semariya Patralaya Jhafal, Tahsil And Police Station- Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Jitendra Singh Rajput S/o Late Shri Baran Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Semariya Patralaya Jhafal, Tahsil And Police Station- Lormi, DistrictMungeli (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Smt. Radha Bai W/o Jitendra Singh Rajput Aged About 38 Years R/o VillageSemariya Patralaya Jhafal, Tahsil And Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶13

4 - The Tahsildar Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State / Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶17

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

13/03/2026

¶20

1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, seeking issuance of a direction to Respondent No.4, the

¶21

2

¶22

Tahsildar, Lormi, to conclude the Revenue Case No.202503250300013/A68/2024-25.

¶23

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the complaint made by the petitioner against respondent Nos.1 & 2, respondent No.3/the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi has registered the aforesaid revenue case with regard to illegal encroachment. He further submits that the aforesaid case is pending since 12.03.2025, despite that, the same has not been concluded yet. Hence, learned counsel prays that, at this stage, the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to decide aforesaid revenue case within a stipulated period.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos.3 & 4 submits that written arguments have already been filed by both the parties; therefore, the order shall be passed expeditiously.

¶25

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

5. The petitioner has filed the order sheets of the aforesaid revenue case, which show that the matter has been pending consideration since 12.03.2025. After recording the evidence of both the parties, written arguments have also been filed by them, as reflected from the order dated 31.12.2025. Despite that, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the final order has not been passed yet.

¶27

6 . Having considered the aforesaid facts and further considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage directing respondent No.4, the Tahsildar, Lormi, District Mungeli (CG), to pass a final order in Revenue Case No.202503250300013/A-68/2024-25 in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order.

¶28

3

¶29

7 . With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶30

8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

¶31

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Rukhsar

Balwan Singh v. Jitendra Singh Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwan Singh v. Jitendra Singh Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Firturam Mandavi Vs Collector

Nandram Navrang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ujjwal Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ccm Metal Tech Pvt. Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh