1 2025:CGHC:31509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3489 of 2025 Naresh Kumar Pandey S/o Late Baldau Prasad Pandey Aged About 72 Years R/o Kashyap Colony, Street No. 3, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 – Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 18 R.I. Circle Seepat, Tahsil-Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishab Bisen, PL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 09.07.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by respondent No.3/Tahsildar under Section 248(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Act of 1959’) whereby respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to remove the 2 encroachment/construction made in the Government land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is appealable before the Appellate Authority under Section 44(1) of the Code of 1959. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for ‘15 days’ time to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority and till then interim protection may be granted to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since, the impugned order is appealable before the Appellate Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue under Section 44(1) of the Code of 1959, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the SDO, Revenue under Section 44(1) of the Code of 1959, however, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner upto 15 days from today and, thereafter, the concerned respondents- authorities may proceed as per relevant rules/law/regulation. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-