1 2025:CGHC:36292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3964 of 2025 1 - Smt. Shanta Dani W/o S. N. Dani Aged About 79 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Amita Masih W/o Rajendra Masih Aged About 54 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Shanti Sendry W/o Mithlesh Sendry Aged About 49 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sahid Hussain S/o Gazanfar Hussain Aged About 40 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Apurba Mridha S/o Swapan Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Naveen Singh S/o A. M. Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Vinit Masih S/o Nirmal Masih Aged About 35 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Shanta Brown W/o Isha Charan Singh Aged About 72 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Arshad Hussain S/o Gazanfar Hussain Aged About 44 Years R/o 2 Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - R.K. Sonwani S/o Shiv Prasad Sonwani Aged About 63 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 11 - Ramgopal Bijhwar S/o Sukhsagar Binjhwar Aged About 54 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 12 - Subhash Wilian S/o John Wiliam Aged About 54 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Brijnand Sahu S/o Kholbahara Aged About 49 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 14 - Rajesh Sonwani S/o Rajendra Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 15 - Manoj Jangde S/o Mohan Das Jangde Aged About 29 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 16 - Sangita Khandey D/o Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 20 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 17 - Ishwari Bai Banjare W/o Sonu Banjare Aged About 27 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 18 - Smt. Rajeshwari Ray W/o Raghvendra Ray @ Ravindra Ray Aged About 33 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Najul Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Nagar Nigam Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri T.K.Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.4 : : Shri Prafull N.Bharat, Advocate General & Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Shri Samarth Singh Marhas, Advocate on behalf of R.S.Marhas, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA) Order on Board 25/07/2025 The petitioners are challenging this petition whereby a notice has been issued to them by the Tahsildar Najul, Bilaspur (CG) on 23.07.2025 for vacating the premises within 48 hours. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are in peaceful possession of the said land and they had constructed a temporary shelter for their livelihood and are paying taxes, allotted electricity meters for which the bills are being paid by them regularly. He submits that the action of the Tahsildar initiating proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is without jurisdiction. He further submits that the order has been passed without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and in an undue haste, the eviction notice has been issued to vacate the premises within 48 hours. 3. Opposing the submission of the counsel for the petitioners, Shri Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General for the State, has drawn 4 the attention of this Court to the earlier order passed by this Court in WPC No. 977 of 2025 dated 18.07.2025 wherein the petitioners are lessee ie. Director, Minority Christian Religious and Charitable Association, Disciples of Christ and Nitin Lawrence and this Court has passed the order which is as under: “38. For all the foregoing reasons as also the rule of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala & Others Vs. Joseph and Company, (2021)9 SCC 335, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and does not call for any interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable legal right or authority and the action taken by the State authorities are justified both in law and on facts. 39. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.” 4. In the present petition, the petitioners are tenants of the lessee and the Collector has passed the order against the lessee, therefore I am not inclined to allow this petition. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has requested the Court that the petitioners may not be evicted during the monsoon/rainy season keeping in view the humanitarian and practical difficulties involved. 5. On perusal of the record, it is found that the Tahsildar Najul has passed the order in exercise of the powers under Section 248(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 against the petitioners therefore there is an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioners by way of appeal under Section 44 of the said Code before the Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, in view of the 5 availability of such alternative remedy, the petitioners have failed to make out any justifiable ground for interference and therefore the present petition may not be entertained at this stage. However, considering the ongoing monsoon/rainy season, 30 days time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises. The petitioners have furnished an undertaking before this Court stating that they will be vacating the said premises within the said period. 6. Upon failure to do so within the stipulated period, it shall be open to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction strictly in accordance with law. The concerned authorities shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate action for eviction in accordance with law and the petitioners shall not cause any obstruction to such proceedings. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.25 18:25:47 +0530