HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.(C)N0.7170 OF 2010 PETITLQNER RESPONDENTS Manohar Satnami, Son of LateLalji Satnami, aged about 55 years, Resident of Teiibandha, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur. 3. The Tehsildar, Raipur. WRiT PETiTEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ai)pe9rance: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. An/ind Dubey, Panel Lawyer forthe respondents. ORAL ORDER (07.02.2011) SUNILKUiViAR SINHA.J. Heard finally with the consent of iearned counsel for the parties. Petitioner" IVianohar Satnami has filed this petition, seeking a dlrection to jonai Tahsildar, Raipur for early disposal of his case pending before the said T'IINN^*lNteionai • authdrity bearing Revenue Case No. 2414-8/121/2009-10. Mr. B.P. Sharma, iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in Revenue Revision Case No. A/14/R/B-121/90/2009, the Circuit Bench at Raipur of Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, has passed the final order on 13th October, 2009, whereby, the order passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer on 31.08.08 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Auditional Tahsiidar, Raipur for expediting the proceedings of mutation in the name ofthe petitioner on the suit lands, after taking evidence of Sarpanch, Kotwar and other persons. He submits that after passing of the said order by Board of Revenue, when no action was taken by Tahsildar, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. W.P.fONO.7170 OF 2010 46/2010, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2010 with the observation that the concerned Tahsildar, Raipur would expedite the hearing of the matter as per order dated 13th October, 2009 passed by the Board of Revenue and wouid take a final decision in accordance with law. He submits that the above order was brought to the notice of the concerned Tahsildar and he was also directed by his higher authorities to comp!y the order of the High Court, but even after that the hearing of the mutation proceedings have not been expedited till date. This Court -while entertaining the writ petition on 08.12.10, issued notices to the respondents to show cause, as to why the petition may not be admitted or finajiy disposed of at the motion stage, on the next date of hearing. The notice was immediateiy accepted by the Government Advocate appearing on advance copy who prayed for two 'weeks time to file reply. Thereafter, the matter was listed On 07.01.2011, but on that date also, the time was sought to file reply. Today, the Panei La'wy'er appearing for the State is praying for further time to file repiy. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, 1 do not deem it appropriate to grant further time to file reply; therefore, the prayer made on that behalf is rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State, this petjtion is finally disposed of with the direction that the concerned Tahslidar shali try to dispose of the matter at the earliest, preferably within a period of 3 rnonths frorn the date of production of certified copy of this order before the said authority. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. There shaii be no order as to cost(s). < Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge