WPC/3942/2021 of RAMLAKHAN Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 28 September 2026

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3/Sub-Divisional Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, whereby the Revenue Case No. 201609061000023/05-A-23/2016- 17, which had earlier been dismissed for want of prosecution, was restored suo motu, without there being any application for restoration by respondent No.4. The petitioner has also sought quashment of the entire subsequent proceedings in the aforesaid revenue case. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the impugned order dated 23-07-2021 (Annexure P-1) and also quash the entire proceeding in relating to the Revenue Case No. 201609061000023/05-A- 23/2016-17 pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the Revenue Case No. 201609061000023/05- A-23/2016-17 from the offence of respondent No.3. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revenue proceedings initiated under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, were dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.03.2020, as respondent No.4, despite repeated opportunities, failed to appear and lead evidence. It is submitted that, thereafter, respondent No.3, without any application for restoration having been filed by respondent No.4 and without any direction from the competent authority, proceeded to restore the already concluded proceedings suo motu vide order dated 23.07.2021. According to learned counsel, such restoration was without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 submits that, during the pendency of the present petition, the entire record of Revenue Case No. 201609061000023/05-A-23/2016-17 was re-examined by the concerned authority. Upon such re-examination, it was found that no application for restoration of the said revenue case was available on record. Learned State counsel further submits that, consequently, respondent No.3, vide order dated 17.01.2025, has already dismissed the said revenue case. It is, therefore, submitted that the order impugned in the present petition has already lost its efficacy and nothing survives for adjudication in the present proceedings.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 concurs with the submission advanced by learned State counsel and submits that, in view of the subsequent order dated 17.01.2025 whereby the revenue proceedings themselves have been dismissed, no effective relief now survives for consideration in the present petition.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner was essentially directed against the order dated 23.07.2021 whereby the earlier concluded revenue proceedings were restored. However, as has been categorically stated in paragraph 4 of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3/State, upon re- examination of the entire record, the concerned Revenue Authority found that no application for restoration was available on record and, consequently, vide order dated 17.01.2025, the said revenue case itself has been dismissed.

6. In view of the subsequent development, the very proceedings which were sought to be revived by the impugned order dated 23.07.2021 have now already come to an end. Thus, the impugned order no longer survives for any effective adjudication and no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the legality of the said order in the present proceedings. Consequently, the present petition has rendered itself infructuous.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the original proceedings or on the rights and contentions of the parties in respect thereof.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge Yogesh