AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 237 wordsNarendra Kumar Vyas, J
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has already submitted an application under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 along with an application for stay under Section 32 of the Code, 1959 before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) Sonhat, District Korea, C.G., however, till date the application for grant of stay has not been decided and the respondents may be directed to decide the same at the earliest.
Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the the petitioner has filed the application on 12/05/2026 and he has approached this Court on 04/06/2026 which shows that an attempt has been made to pressurize the authorities.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
Perusal of the document would show that the petitioner had submitted the application before the competent revenue authority on 12.05.2026 and approached the Court on 04.06.2026 without affording sufficient time to the authority to consider and decide the matter, which, according to the Court, appeared to be an attempt to pressurize the authorities. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that the concerned revenue authorities shall consider and decide the petitioner's application independently, strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.