Rajesh Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 26 of 2018 • Rajesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About 63 Years R/o 602, Ahmedji Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.

The Commissioner Land Records Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 2, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3.

The Competent Authority Cum Additional Commissioner Raipur Division District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4.

The Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5.

Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About 61 Years R/o Purani Basti , Baniyapara Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 5, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

6.

Asit Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About 77 Years R/o Ahmedji Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 6, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

7.

Mangal Vinod Agrawal , S/o Late Shri Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o Baniyapara Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 7, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

8.

Smt. Kamal Agrawal D/o Late Shri Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About 66 Years R/o Baniyapara Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 8, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

9.

Smt. Kumud Agrawal W/o Late Shri Ramnivaran Agrawal Aged About 73 Years Address Gram Ghoradi, Nadi Chowk , Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 9, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27.03.2018 1.

The sole relief sought for by the Petitioner is for the earliest disposal of the matter, which is pending consideration before the Respondent No.2. 2.

According to the Petitioner the dispute, pertaining to Ceiling Case No.6592/B-90(3)/74-75 under the provision of M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, is pending consideration before the Respondent No.2 since 1974.

The only request which the Petitioner has made is that the said dispute may be decided at the earliest.

3.

Considering the fact that the matter is pending consideration before the authorities concerned for the last 44 years, it would be in the larger interest of justice that the said dispute be redressed at the earliest preferably within a period of one year from today. It shall be the duty of the Petitioner to appraise the Respondent No.2 in respect of the order passed by this Court. It is also expected that the Petitioner shall render all cooperation before the authorities concerned for the earlier disposal of the matter. 4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Chandra