1 2025:CGHC:21387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2426 of 2025 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 Cg ... Petitioner 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 3 - Sub Divisional Officer(R) Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur CG 4 - The Tahsildar Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur CG 5 - Yadvendra Kaiwartha Tahsildar, Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur CG 6 - Commissioner Sarguja Division Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja CG ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 08.05.2025 1 Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the State. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.09 19:53:12 +0530 2 “I. to quash/set aside the order date 1/5/25 (Annexure P/12) in Revenue Case No. 202504960100006 year 2024-2025 Sub A-68 pending before the respondent no. 6. II. to issue the appropriate writ/orders by directing the respondents authorities, not to act/implement/execute an order dated 6/1/2025. III. 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. IV. 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.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is filed against the order dated 01.05.2025 issued by respondent No.6 in Revenue Case No. 202504960100006 year 2024-2025 Sub A-68, whereby respondent No.6 by preponing the date from 19.06.2025, vacated the interim order and fixed the date for hearing on 19.05.2025. He further submits that on 15.04.2025, the High Court had passed an interim order in WPC No.1927/2025 while directing respondents authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of removal of encroachment. However, the Commissioner Surguja Division 3 Ambikapur District Surguja was directed to decide the pending appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of 90 days. On the very next date i.e. on 16.04.2025, respondent No.5 went to the Court of Commissioner and moved an application for urgent hearing. It has been contended that the Tahsildar passed an order in the judicial capacity and his order is under challenge before the Higher Court, then he is not supposed to take the matter personally and filing an application for urgent hearing and himself attended the hearing. It has been further contended that the Commissioner without notice to the petitioner had prepond the date, heard the matter on 16.04.2025 and fixed the matter on 22.04.2025 whereas no notice was received by the petitioner for 22.04.2025 and next date was given on 01.05.2025 for records of the Tahsildar. On the next date, an application was moved by the petitioner and requested that there is no reason for preponing the date from 19.06.2025 to 19.05.2025, but the learned Commissioner, without any consideration, had rejected the stay application that too without any reason and further no application for vacating stay was received. It has been argued that on 01.05.2025, respondent No.5 himself attended the hearing and respondent No.4 in official capacity and respondent No.5 in personal capacity are adamant to remove the construction of the petitioner, though the interim order has already been informed to the said respondents and the date was intentionally fixed for 19.05.2025. 4 4 Considering the matter in its entirety, it seems that the Tahsildar concerned as well as the Commissioner concerned have not understood the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No.1927/2025. 5 Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dates cannot be preponed by the Tahsildar and Commissioner concerned and while disposing of the instant petition, the Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur District Surguja, is directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of land in question and the petitioner may not be removed from his possession. It is further directed that the Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur District Surguja shall decide the pending appeal in accordance with order dated 15.04.2025 passed in WPC No.1927/2025. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application for adjournment looking to the fact that the Courts are going to be closed for summer vacation. 6 With the aforesaid observation/direction, instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh