1 / 4 2025:CGHC:1359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 76 of 2025 1 - Bharti @ Pushpanjali D/o Late Shri Suleman Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Amora, Tahsil Pathariya, (C.G.) District Mungeli Present Address- Mission Compound, Near Babar Bungalow, Sadak Pal Church, Babu Jagjivan Ram Ward, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Office Of Collectorate, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - The Additional Collector, Office Of Collectorate, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisonal Officer (Revenue) Office Of Collectorate, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - The Tahsildar/Naib Tahsildar, Office Of Tahsildar, Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 / 4 6 - Chandrakali W/o Late Suleman Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Satnami, R/o Village Amora, Tahsil- Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate alongwith Mr. Manish Kumar Saluja, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 18/11/2024 by which the Additional Collector, District Mungeli has vacated the stay order dated 20/02/2024 (Annexure P/2) passed by the SDO (Revenue), Pathariya, District Mungeli in Revenue Case No.202402250500009/A-6-A/2023-24. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17/01/2024 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Pathariya in a revenue proceeding, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 44(1) read with Section 52 of CGLRC before the SDO in which after hearing the parties, the SDO has passed an order by exercising power under Section 2 of the CGLRC directing that no sale and purchase of the land in question during pendency of the appeal. Against the said interim order, the respondent preferred a revision under Section 50 of the CGLRC before the Additional Collector stating that, there can be no stay of execution of the order beyond the period prescribed under Section 52 of the CGLRC i.e. “till the next date of hearing or one month whichever is earlier”. There is a provision in Section 52 3 / 4 that the execution of the order can only be stayed till the next date of hearing or one month whichever is earlier. However the interim order passed by the SDO is an order without framing the time limit, thus it amounts to stay of the execution of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Collector has wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 52 which prescribed that the execution of the order may be stayed until the next hearing or one month whichever is earlier however, in the present case, the SDO has passed the interim order directing stay of sale and purchase of the land in question and there is no stay of the execution of the impugned order. Hence the provision prescribed under Section 52 will not attract in the present case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the order of the SDO by which he has directed that there shall be no sale and purchase of the land in question is amounts to an order of stay of the execution of the order passed by the Tahsildar and hence the order passed by the SDO is not in accordance with Section 52 and the Additional Collector has rightly passed the order and warranting no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the SDO. 6. The SDO has passed an order staying the sale and purchase of the land only. There is no order of stay of execution of the 4 / 4 impugned order in the appeal, hence the provision prescribed under Section 52 which provides that the execution of the order can be stayed till the next date of hearing or one month whichever is earlier will not be applicable in the present case, because the SDO has passed the interim order staying the sale and purchase of the the land in question. 7. The Collector has misinterpreted the fact of the present case and provision of Section 52 of the CGLRC, hence, the order impugned passed by the Additional Collector is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the SDO (Revenue), Pathariya, District Mungeli to decide the appeal pending before him within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar