Disposed

Premnath v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026WPC/4724/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, issued a single judge order on a writ petition. The petitioners challenged the discrepancy between offline and online revenue records regarding a subject property. The court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation for correction of online records within 30 days. The court explicitly declined to express an opinion on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioners' representation for correction of online revenue records within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Premnath Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.1817:03:36 +0530

CGHC010361962026

2026:CGHC:40730

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 4724 of 2026

¶8

1 - Premnath S/o Bholanath, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Kumarawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Khemeshwar Joshi S/o Late Banmali Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Kumarawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Vijay Joshi, S/o Late Banmali, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kumarawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue And Disaster Management Secretariat, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

2 - The Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶14

3 - The Tahsildar Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

18.09.2026

¶20

1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps for correction of

¶21

¶22

the online revenue records in respect of the subject property in consonance with the offline revenue records and the orders passed by this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-

¶23

“A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for all relevant records of case pertaining the petitioners' case from the respondents if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of case.

¶24

B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate writ do issue directing the respondent authorities to take steps for correction of online records in respect of subject property in line of their offline records, making it in consonance with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

And/Or

¶26

A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners for correction of online records of subject property in accordance with law expeditiously within the time specified by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

¶28

C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.

¶29

D. Cost of the petition may also be awarded. ”

¶30

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, possession of the subject property has already been restored in favour of the petitioners and their names have also been entered in the relevant offline revenue records. However, despite the correction having been carried out in the offline records, the online revenue records have not yet been brought in conformity therewith and the names of the persons who have already lost the litigation continue to be reflected therein. It is further submitted that the petitioners have made representations before the concerned authorities seeking correction of the online records, but no effective decision has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel, therefore, confines his prayer and submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioners within a stipulated period, in accordance with law.

¶31

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that he has no objection if the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted and the concerned authorities are directed

¶32

¶33

to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners within a reasonable period, in accordance with law.

¶34

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioners primarily relates to non-consideration of their representation seeking correction of the online revenue records in accordance with the existing offline revenue records. Since the petitioners have already approached the concerned authorities by way of representation and the prayer made before this Court is confined to consideration and decision of the said representation, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.

¶35

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners.

¶36

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶39

Yogesh

Premnath v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premnath v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases