1 2025:CGHC:17301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1927 of 2025 1 - Jagdish Pandey S/o Late Jibodh Pandey Aged About 57 Years By Caste Brahmin, R/o Village Ward No. 3, Near Green Park Hotel, Chainpur, Thana And Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt.- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector Distt.- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). 4 - The Tahsildar Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). 5 - Yadvendra Kaiwartha Incharge Tahsildar Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.). 6 - Commissioner Sarguja Division Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/04/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “I. to issue the appropriate writ/ orders by directing the respondents authorities particularly respondent no. 4 and 5, not to act/implement/execute an order dated 6/1/2025 till the decision on appeal filed by petitioner before the respondent no. 6. II to direct the respondent no. 1 to take disciplinary action against the respondent no. 5 for illegal conduct and act and further please to award the compensation to the petitioner, for the harassment. III Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by respondent No. 3- the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, District-Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No. 6- the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, 3 District- Sarguja in which vide order dated 01.04.2025, the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja has passed an order of stay and has called the records, however, without considering this aspect a notice dated 9.4.2025 has been passed against the petitioner for removal of encroachment made by the petitioner by respondent No. 4- the Tahsildar, Manendragarh, District-Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur. He further submits that the order passed by the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja has been apprised to the Tahsildar, however, the Tahsildar is not honoring the order passed by the Commissioner and he is forcing the petitioner to vacate the land and giving threatening to the petitioner to remove the so called encroachment made by the petitioner. He further submits that the Tahsildar by doing such act is contrary to the Judicial discipline and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further submits that since the appeal is pending before the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja as such necessary orders may be passed to the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja to decide his appeal expeditiously. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that though when the Tahsildar has been apprised about the order passed by the higher authorities i.e. the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, it ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tahsildar. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that an order of stay has already been passed by the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja against the order of the Tahsildar dated 24.03.2025 vide its order dated 1.4.2025. The Tahsildar Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur is required to see the order and to act upon the order, it is an order by the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja which is his higher Judicial Officer and according to Judicial discipline it has to be honoured by the concerned Tahsildar. The concerned Tahsildar by not considering the same and by not accepting the same is infact inviting some comments by this Court in respect of his understanding and Judicial capacity and that is why the Tahsildar has been made as private respondent in this petition. It is expected from the concerned Tahsildar to do in accordance with law and to see Judicial discipline in passing the orders. If in any other occasions such an order has been passed by the Judicial Officer/ Revenue Officer like this, necessary orders will be passed against such Officers. 6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of while directing all the concerned authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of removal of encroachment. However, the Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja is 5 directed to decide the pending appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the production of this order. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat