1 2025:CGHC:13095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1417 of 2025 1 - Raju Chandra S/o Amarnath Chandra Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Bhatmahul, Post- Pirda, Police Station And Tehsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Pramila Devi Chandra W/o Bhagwan Lal Chandra R/o Village- Bhatmahul, Post- Pirda, Police Station And Tehsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Ramesh Nayak, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/03/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a complaint upon which orders have been passed for eviction from the land which has been illegally occupied by respondent No.4, however, thereafter, nothing has been done and respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal in which the order passed against respondent No.4 has been set aside. Vide order dated Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.03.20 19:30:05 +0530 2 19.6.2024 in an appeal which has been filed after a very belated period the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti has considered the case and held that since respondent No.4 has bona fidely occupied the said land and he is ready to vacate the land, the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 1.6.2020 was set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the order of the Tahsildar has not been complied with and eviction has not been effected and respondent No.4 is still in occupation of the government land. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner was not a party in the proceedings and so far as his complaint is concerned it has been duly considered and orders have been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) which cannot be said to be complied with. However, upon a query that respondent No.4 is still in possession of the land in question, learned counsel for the State submits that if it is so, the concerned authorities will take care of it and they will take initiative to vacate the land. 3. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the order dated 19.6.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), it seems that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has passed a reasoned order and the petitioner who is just a complainant, is not having any locus to challenge the said order, it is upon the State Government to challenge the said order, but, the State Government has not challenged it and as such the present is not a fit case to pass any order in favour of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the State is directed to confirm the fact that the land of the State, which is in occupation of respondent No.4, is vacated and if any complaint, which has been made by the 3 petitioner/complainant, still survives, the concerned authority may take necessary steps against respondent No.4. 4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh