1 2025:CGHC:3318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 398 of 2025 1 Dinesh Rajwade S/o Shri Teekam Rajwade Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Service Posted As Constable In 4th Batalian, Mana Camp R/o Village Banarsi, Post Mana Basti, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Capital Complex Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 Additional Tahsildar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 20/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is questioning the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the SDO (Revenue) whereby the appeal against the order of Tahsildar dated 04.09.2024 has been admitted and the application for grant of stay has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 04.09.2024, Tahsildar under Section 248 of C.G. Land Revenue Code has passed the order of illegal encroachment and directed removal of construction made over the grass land by the petitioner. He further submits that the order of Tahsildar was challenged before the SDO (Revenue) in which the petitioner has also moved an application for grant of stay. He further submits that by order dated 09.12.2024, the application for grant of stay/ interim relief has been rejected. He further submits that proceeding of the appeal is still pending before the SDO and as per the order of 04.09.2024 of the Tashildar there are chances that petitioner’s construction over the land in question may be removed. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that if the appeal before the SDO is pending, the same will be considered and decided within 3 stipulated period. He further submits that there is no illegality in the rejection order of interim relief. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Perusal of the proceedings before the SDO shows that the appeal of the petitioner is still pending and next date of hearing is fixed on 06.01.2025. Considering the fact that the appeal is still pending before the SDO, it will not be appropriate to interfere in the order dated 09.12.2024, by which the interim application was rejected. It is further directed that if the appeal is still pending, the SDO (Revenue) shall consider the appeal in accordance with law and decide the same within a period of 20 days from today. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti