1 / 3 2025:CGHC:10471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 51 of 202 5 • Shivshankar Verma S/o Shivprasad Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sambalpur Tehsil Nandghat District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Bemetara District - Bemetara (C.G.) 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh District - Bemetara (C.G.) 3. Tehsildar Tehsil Nandghat District - Bemetara (C.G.) 4. Surendra S/o Shivshankar Lodhi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sambalpur Tehsil Nandghat District - Bemetara (C.G.) 5. Sheshnarayan S/o Shivshankar Lodhi Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sambalpur Tehsil Nandghat District - Bemetara (C.G.) 6. Om Soni S/o Late Shri Ramji Soni Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Post And Out Post Sambalpur Police Station Nawagarh Tehsil Nandghat District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vedant Bhelonde, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3/State For Respondent No. 6 : : Mr. Pravin Das, Dy. Advocate General Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judg e ORDER ON BOARD 04/03/2025 1. By the present petition, petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in WPC No. 6376/2024. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the land in question has been allotted to petitioner by the State Government on 10.10.2001 by giving certificate of bhumiswami rights. Learned counsel by referring the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nawagarh by which the bhumiswami rights has been given to petitioner over the land bearing khasra No. 562/2 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 submits that though the order of removal of encroachment has been passed by the Tahsildar on 28.03.2023 is not against him but the same has been passed against Respondents No. 4 & 5 and the said order of Tahsildar is also affirmed by the SDO(R.) vide order dated 12.04.2024 in an appeal filed by Respondents No. 4 & 5. He contended that though the land in question has been allotted to petitioner but the review petitioner has not been impleaded as party in the proceedings before the Tahsildar as well as the SDO(R.) Even in the writ proceedings in WPC No. 6376/2024, the review petitioner has not been impleaded as party and the order has been passed by this Court by directing for implementation of the order of Tahsildar as well as the SDO(R.) dated 28.03.2023 and 12.04.2024 respectively within a period of 50 days, hence, the review petitioner being an affected party should be a necessary party. He would further submit that the petitioner has already questioned the order of SDO(R.) as well as Tahsildar before the Commissioner, Durg Division by filing an appeal under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. He submits that the time limit given in the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court will affect the right of petitioner as the petitioner has already questioned the order of Tahsildar as well as SDO(R.) before the Commissioner. The appeal has been entertained by the Commissioner which is still pending consideration, hence, the time limit which has been given in the order dated 07.01.2025 be modified. 3. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 would submit that petitioner is having no locus to question the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court as the review petitioner was not a party to the proceedings of eviction initiated by the Tahsildar and the order passed by Tahsildar dated 28.03.2023 of eviction is against Respondents No. 4 & 5 and the said order is not against review petitioner. Hence, there is no question that the petitioner will be affected by the order of Tahsildar 3 / 3 as well as the SDO(R.) and there is no need to modify the time limit given for implementation of order of Tahsildar and the SDO(R.). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings of petitioner as well as the certificate of bhumiswami rights given to review petitioner. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that the review petitioner has already approached the Commissioner to question the order of Tahsildar as well as the SDO(R.) by filing an appeal under Section 44(2) of the Code, 1959 which has been entertained by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner entertains the appeal by which the review petitioner is questioning the order of Tahsildar and any interim order is passed by the Commissioner, then the respondents are free to obey the order of Commissioner. In case any order is passed in favour of review petitioner by reversing the order of Tahsildar and the SDO(R.), the time limit framed by this court in the order dated 07.01.2025 in WPC No. 6376/2024 will not come in the way of respondents and the respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law, subject to order of Commissioner passed in an appeal filed by petitioner. 6. For the foregoing discussion, this review petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) pwn JUDGE