Aziz Gori Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Aziz Gori S/o Jalaluddin Gori Aged About 36 Years R/o - Ward No. 11, Dabra Para, Bagbahara, Kalan (Viran) Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Srijan Sahu S/o Toshan Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o - House No. 68, Post - B.K. Bahara Joratarai Baghbahra, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chaman Patel S/o Jhuru Ram Patel Aged About 36 Years Makan No.7, Ward No.3, Lamkeni, Baghbahra District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Urban Administration Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur) District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

2 - Collector Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶16

3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Bagbahara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶17

2

¶18

4 - Tehshildar Bagbahara, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶21

For Petitioner :- Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For State :- Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L.

¶22

SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

28.07.2026

¶25

By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:-

¶26

“10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order to decide their pending representation for issuance of patta.

¶27

10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant compensation or rehabilitate the petitioner as the Rehabilitation Scheme.

¶28

10.3) This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant lease of government land on an alternative place or on the same land.

¶29

10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶30

3

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned revenue authority has affixed a board over the land in question declaring the same to be Government land. It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the said land, bearing Khasra Nos. 244 and 245, admeasuring 2.1300 hectares and 0.9250 hectares respectively. However, the said lands are recorded as Government land in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in possession of the said land for a considerable period and, therefore, he had submitted an appropriate application before the competent authority seeking consideration of his claim. However, the said application has not been decided till date. It is contended that instead of considering the said application, the authorities have proceeded to treat the land as Government land and have taken steps which are prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the concerned authority for consideration and decision of the pending application submitted by the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute that the petitioner has already approached the competent authority by way of an application, which is stated to be pending consideration.

¶33

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the grievance raised by the petitioner primarily relates to non-consideration of his pending application by the competent authority. Since the said application is stated to be pending and has not yet been adjudicated

¶34

4

¶35

upon, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the concerned Collector by way of a fresh representation, along with a copy of the pending application and relevant documents, raising all his grievances.

¶36

On receipt of such representation, the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶37

It is made clear that since an order of interim protection has already been granted by this Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in respect of the land in question till the decision of the aforesaid application by the competent authority within the stipulated period.

¶38

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

No order as to costs.

¶40

sd/-

¶41

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶42

Vishakha

Aziz Gori v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aziz Gori v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Daga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemlata Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Johanlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devraj Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kheduram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhaiya Lal Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh