1 2025:CGHC:15448 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3414 of 2021 • Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Jhanki, Tahsil Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Naya Raipur Development Athority, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority Mantralay Near Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Assistant Manager (Land), Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 4/ State For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the Eviction Warrant dated 14.07.2021 issued by respondent no. 3 i.e. Assistant Manager (Land), Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 2 issued an eviction warrant on 14.7.2021 to remove the possession from part of Survey No. 525 admeasuring 2.63 hectares where godown has been constructed. He would further submit that respondent No. 2 cannot exercise the power under Section 248 of the CG Land Revenue Code as the power is vested with the Tehsildar only. 3. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 would submit that a Notification was issued by the State of Chhattisgarh on 11.09.2007 and the Assistant Manager (Land) of Naya Raipur Development Authority has been conferred with the power of Section 248 of CG Land Revenue Code. He would contend that a proceeding was initiated, the order was passed against the petitioner and thereafter eviction notice was issued. 4. Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents 1 and 4 would support the submissions made by Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that respondent No. 2 has exercised the power under Section 248 of the CG Land Revenue Code pursuant to a Notification issued by the State Government dated 11.09.2007, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Jeet Ram Patel cannot be accepted. Thus, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, 3 the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appropriate Authority. 7. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha is directed to serve a copy of the order passed under Section 248 of the CG Land Revenue Code to the petitioner within a period of 15 days. 8. As the interim order has been operating in favour of the petitioner since 23.08.2021, it shall remain in force for a further period of 45 days only. 9. If the petitioner prefers an appeal along with an application for the grant of stay, the Appellate Authority shall decide it within a period of 45 days. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti