1 2026:CGHC:26724 NAFR AVINASH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURSHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASHSHARMA WPC No. 3255 of 2026 Date: 2026.07.02 11:14:40 +0530 1 - Smt. Alka Agrawal W/o Shri Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 54 Years Presently Residing At Bamaliya Electricals, Near Vrindavan Parisar, Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, Near Dks Bhawan Parisar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Upper Collector, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Additional Tahsildar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - M/s Singhania Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Subodh Singhania, S/o Shaymlal Singhania, R/o G.E. Road, Shyam Chamber, Hirapur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent authorities, particularly Respondent no. 2 - the Commissioner, Raipur, to decide the revision petition bearing Revision 2

Revenue Case no. 209/A-12/2020-21 filed by the present Petitioner against the Order dated 01.03.2021 passed in by the Ld. Upper Collector, Raipur, which has remained pending for more than 5 years now, with little progress, resulting in grave prejudice against the present Petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of a piece of land situated at Khasra no. 641/9, admeasuring 2500 sq. ft. (50ft x 50ft), Patwari Halka no. 103/35, Village- Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.) which has been purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 28.10.2006 and which is bounded by public road on its two sides and over which the petitioner has constructed a boundary wall on all the four sides and is in peaceful possession and occupation of aforesaid property. In the year 2015, the petitioner came to know that the Respondent No. 5 had obtained permission to develop a multi-storey residential project near the Petitioner's land vide Development Permission No. 9530/87/12/14 dated 26.06.2014. In order to secure approval for said project, Respondent No. 5 has falsely represented the public road running adjacent to the Petitioner's as well as Respondent No. 5's property to have a width of 40 ft instead of its actual width of 20 ft. Moreover, so as to maintain this deception, the Respondent No. 5 has also incorrectly and illegally represented part of the Petitioner's land as part of public road, and for the same reason has also attempted alteration of the boundary wall constructed by the petitioner over her aforesaid land. Upon coming to know of the above, the petitioner immediately filed a complaint in this regard before the concerned 3

authorities, and later also made several complaints in this regard before higher officials on account of inaction in respect of the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from the aforementioned complaints, the petitioner also filed an application for demarcation of her aforementioned land before the Respondent no. 4 herein, which was registered as Revenue Case no. 53/A-12/2015-16. In the said case, vide order dated 26.11.2015, the Revenue Inspector and Patwari were directed to conduct demarcation of the Petitioner's land. However, during the said demarcation process, an authorized representative of the Respondent No. 5 herein filed an objection. Against the same, the petitioner herein filed her reply, and ultimately vide order dated 14.02.2019, the Respondent no. 4 rejected the objection against the Respondent No. 5 herein and in favour of the petitioner, and the demarcation report was submitted by the concerned Revenue officials, and the demarcation case disposed thereafter. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 14.02.2019, by which its objection was rejected, Respondent No. 5 challenged the same vide revision petition bearing Revision Revenue Case no. 02/A-12/2019-20 before the Respondent No. 3 herein . In the above case, notice was issued to the present Petitioner and interim protection granted vide Order dated 15.11.2019. However, even after the petitioner had filed her reply therein, the case had remained pending for more than eleven months at the stage of deciding the Respondent No. 5's application for condonation of delay, and no effective proceedings were 4

being conducted therein. Aggrieved by the delay, the present Petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court by way of WPC No.2894 of 2020, titled "Smt. Alka Agrawal v State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.", seeking the limited relief of a direction to the Respondent No. 3 Authority herein to decide the case expeditiously. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of the same vide Order dated 02.12.2020 directing the Upper Collector, Raipur, to decide the same within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No observations as to merits was made. Thereafter, the Ld. Upper Collector passed Order dated 01.03.2021 deciding the pending Revenue Case No. 02/A-12/2019-20 in favour of the present Respondent No. 5, and rescinding the Order dated 14.02.2019. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that, Order dated 01.03.2021 was challenged by the present Petitioner before the Ld. Commissioner, Raipur Division, by way of Revision Revenue Case no. 209/A-12/2020-21. It is clear from the Order sheet of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Commissioner, Raipur, there has been little progress in the case despite the appearance of both parties, and in spite of the fact that the matter has remained pending since 2020-2021. This unwarranted delay is causing grave prejudice to the present Petitioner, as such, necessary direction may be to Commissioner to decide the case expeditiously.

4. Having regard to the limited relief sought by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to decide the revision petition bearing Revision 5 Revenue Case no. 209/A-12/2020-21 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. 5. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash

1 2026:CGHC:26724 NAFR AVINASH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURSHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASHSHARMA WPC No. 3255 of 2026 Date: 2026.07.02 11:14:40 +0530 1 - Smt. Alka Agrawal W/o Shri Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 54 Years Presently Residing At Bamaliya Electricals, Near Vrindavan Parisar, Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, Near Dks Bhawan Parisar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Upper Collector, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Additional Tahsildar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - M/s Singhania Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Subodh Singhania, S/o Shaymlal Singhania, R/o G.E. Road, Shyam Chamber, Hirapur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent authorities, particularly Respondent no. 2 - the Commissioner, Raipur, to decide the revision petition bearing Revision 2

Revenue Case no. 209/A-12/2020-21 filed by the present Petitioner against the Order dated 01.03.2021 passed in by the Ld. Upper Collector, Raipur, which has remained pending for more than 5 years now, with little progress, resulting in grave prejudice against the present Petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of a piece of land situated at Khasra no. 641/9, admeasuring 2500 sq. ft. (50ft x 50ft), Patwari Halka no. 103/35, Village- Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.) which has been purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 28.10.2006 and which is bounded by public road on its two sides and over which the petitioner has constructed a boundary wall on all the four sides and is in peaceful possession and occupation of aforesaid property. In the year 2015, the petitioner came to know that the Respondent No. 5 had obtained permission to develop a multi-storey residential project near the Petitioner's land vide Development Permission No. 9530/87/12/14 dated 26.06.2014. In order to secure approval for said project, Respondent No. 5 has falsely represented the public road running adjacent to the Petitioner's as well as Respondent No. 5's property to have a width of 40 ft instead of its actual width of 20 ft. Moreover, so as to maintain this deception, the Respondent No. 5 has also incorrectly and illegally represented part of the Petitioner's land as part of public road, and for the same reason has also attempted alteration of the boundary wall constructed by the petitioner over her aforesaid land. Upon coming to know of the above, the petitioner immediately filed a complaint in this regard before the concerned 3

authorities, and later also made several complaints in this regard before higher officials on account of inaction in respect of the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from the aforementioned complaints, the petitioner also filed an application for demarcation of her aforementioned land before the Respondent no. 4 herein, which was registered as Revenue Case no. 53/A-12/2015-16. In the said case, vide order dated 26.11.2015, the Revenue Inspector and Patwari were directed to conduct demarcation of the Petitioner's land. However, during the said demarcation process, an authorized representative of the Respondent No. 5 herein filed an objection. Against the same, the petitioner herein filed her reply, and ultimately vide order dated 14.02.2019, the Respondent no. 4 rejected the objection against the Respondent No. 5 herein and in favour of the petitioner, and the demarcation report was submitted by the concerned Revenue officials, and the demarcation case disposed thereafter. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 14.02.2019, by which its objection was rejected, Respondent No. 5 challenged the same vide revision petition bearing Revision Revenue Case no. 02/A-12/2019-20 before the Respondent No. 3 herein . In the above case, notice was issued to the present Petitioner and interim protection granted vide Order dated 15.11.2019. However, even after the petitioner had filed her reply therein, the case had remained pending for more than eleven months at the stage of deciding the Respondent No. 5's application for condonation of delay, and no effective proceedings were 4

being conducted therein. Aggrieved by the delay, the present Petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court by way of WPC No.2894 of 2020, titled "Smt. Alka Agrawal v State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.", seeking the limited relief of a direction to the Respondent No. 3 Authority herein to decide the case expeditiously. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of the same vide Order dated 02.12.2020 directing the Upper Collector, Raipur, to decide the same within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No observations as to merits was made. Thereafter, the Ld. Upper Collector passed Order dated 01.03.2021 deciding the pending Revenue Case No. 02/A-12/2019-20 in favour of the present Respondent No. 5, and rescinding the Order dated 14.02.2019. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that, Order dated 01.03.2021 was challenged by the present Petitioner before the Ld. Commissioner, Raipur Division, by way of Revision Revenue Case no. 209/A-12/2020-21. It is clear from the Order sheet of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Commissioner, Raipur, there has been little progress in the case despite the appearance of both parties, and in spite of the fact that the matter has remained pending since 2020-2021. This unwarranted delay is causing grave prejudice to the present Petitioner, as such, necessary direction may be to Commissioner to decide the case expeditiously.

4. Having regard to the limited relief sought by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to decide the revision petition bearing Revision 5 Revenue Case no. 209/A-12/2020-21 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. 5. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash