1 2025:CGHC:29003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3304 of 2020 1 - Harish Prasad Chandra S/o Shri Vishalnath Chandra Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bargaon Tahsil Nawagaon , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue Department , Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Nawagarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Meghnath Chandra S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Chandra R/o Village Bargaon Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shankarlal Sahu S/o Shri Ramhaiya Sahu R/o Village Bargaon Tahsil Nawagarh , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 30-06-2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a complaint being made by petitioner, a proceeding under Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was initiated against respondents No. 5 and 6 and Tehsildar, Nawagarh passed order against them on 31.03.2016. He further submits that respondents No. 5 and 6 preferred appeal before Collector, Janjgir–Champa which was dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2020. He contends that though there is no order in favor of respondents No. 5 and 6, no action has been taken till date with regard to removal of encroachment. He further contends that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to take action against respondents No. 5 and 6. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 3) Heard. 4) Evidently, an order under Section 248 of the Code, 1959 was passed against respondents No. 5 and 6 by Tehsildar, Nawagarh on 31.03.2016 and appeal preferred by them was also dismissed. Petitioner has filed this petition for execution of order passed by Tehsildar under Section 248 of Code, 1959. 5) Section 248(2) and 248(2)(a) of Code, 1959 prescribes procedure for removal of encroachment pursuant to order passed under Section 248 of Code, 1959. The petitioner has remedy either to 3 approach the concerned Tehsildar or SDO(R) according to the afore-stated provisions but instead approaching those authorities, petitioner has preferred this petition before High Court knowing fully well that High Court is not an executing Court for the order passed by Tehsildar, therefore, no such direction can be given as this petition is not maintainable. 6) Accordingly, this petition is hereby being disposed of reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to approach the revenue authorities as contemplated under Sections 248(2) and 248(2)(a) of the Code, 1959. It is directed that in case, petitioner moves application before the concerned authorities as per afore-stated provisions, it is expected that authority(s) shall decide such application strictly in accordance with law. 7) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.01 14:34:52 +0530