1 / 3 2025:CGHC:24500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2960 of 2025 Bhagat Ram Yadav S/o. Late Baharta Aged About 70 Years Caste - Rawat, R/o. Village - Murlidih, Tahsil - Bhothiya, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil - Bhothiya, District - Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Ashwani Kumar Sahu S/o. Ramdulare Sahu, R/o. Village - Murlidih, Tahsil Village Murlidih, Tahsil Bhothiya, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Dewangan, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned eviction warrant dated 05/06/2025 issued by Respondent No.4, whereby the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.06.18 14:16:05 +0530 2 / 3 Respondent No.4 has removed the petitioner from his possession land bearing Khasra No.982, area 0.2550 Hectare without any show- cause without any opportunity of hearing. 2. The brief facts of this case are projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before Respondent No.3 challenging the order dated 03/01/2024 passed by Respondent No.4 and the private Respondent No.5 filed an application before the Respondent No.4 for seeking direction to clear way upon the land bearing Khasra No.1007/4, admeasuring 0.25 decimal situated at Village Murlidih, Tahsil Bhothiya, District Sakti, wherein Respondent No.4 has passed the order 03/01/2025 against the petitioner and being aggrieved with the order dated 03/01/2025 passed by Respondent No.4, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 52 (2) of the CGLRC before the Respondent No.3 and the appeal is pending and during pendency of the appeal the impugned notice dated 05/06/2025 has been issued. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without giving opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show-cause notice the Respondent No.4 demolished the construction of the petitioner. He would next contend that the petitioner and his forefather are very poor person and permanently residing and they are in possession of the land in question as per terms and conditions of the allotment prior to 40-45 years and the petitioner is paying all the requisite 3 / 3 amounts regarding the land and if the petitioner is removed from the said land he will face irreparable loss and severe consequences. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the instant petition has no substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. On perusal of the documents I have found that the Tehsildar Bhothiya, District Sakti has passed the order under Section 248 of the CGLRC on 03/01/2024 against the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the SDO under Section 44 (1) of the CGLRC, which is still pending before the SDO and the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 52 (2) of the CGLRC on 13th of May, 2025 which is also pending. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pursue the matter before the SDO and the SDO is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 52 (2) of the CGLRC expeditiously. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu