1 / 5 2025:CGHC:39410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4220 of 2025 1 - Manoj Nand S/o Late Shri Ghasiram Nand Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Harratar, Post Saraipali, Mahasamund District Mahasamund C.G. 2 - Sumidha W/o Late Shri Ghasiram Nand Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Harratar, Post Saraipali, Mahasamund District Mahasamund C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur C.G. 2 - The Additional Commissioner, Raipur, Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G. 4 - The Tahsildar, Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G. 5 - Bajrang Sen S/o Ganpatram Sen, R/o Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For State : Ms. AkanshaVerma Dabhadker, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.07 17:42:39 +0530 2 / 5 10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and Direct the Respondent No.4 to de-seal and restore possession of the property situated at Khasra No.390/1 to the Petitioners forthwith, pending final adjudication of rights, in order to prevent irreparable harm and protect the Petitioner’s livelihood; 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from taking any further coercive action against the Petitioner in respect of the subject land, without conducting a proper demarcation and affording the Petitioner due opportunity of hearing; 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order / direction and set aside/quashed the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P/1). 10.5 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 2 is an elderly widow and a law-abiding resident of Village Harratar, Tahsil Saraypali, District Mahasamund, who has been in peaceful possession of her ancestral land bearing Khasra No. 390/1, Rakba 0.87 hectares, where she, along with her son, has been running a dhaba (roadside eatery) for over two decades. The dispute arises 3 / 5 from a false and motivated complaint filed by Respondent No. 5, Bajrang Lal Sen, who made allegations of illegal encroachment over Government land Khasra No. 384 Rakba 0.15 hectare, situated adjacent to the Raipur-Saraipali Road. It is submitted that Respondent No. 5 is not a government authority or a nearby landowner but has personal animosity with the petitioner. On the basis of his complaint, a case was registered by Respondent No. 4 under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 1959), without proper demarcation or notice. The petitioner was never shown any authenticated site map or given a personal hearing with respect to the location or extent of alleged encroachment. On 04.09.2024, a temporary stay order was granted restraining further construction on the site, which was objected to by the petitioner by submitting that the construction was taking place only on her private patta land bearing Khasra No. 390/1, and not on Khasra No. 384 as alleged. Despite filing a detailed reply and producing relevant documents including pattas, demarcation records, and old revenue entries, Respondent No. 4 passed a final order directing eviction from 0.01 hectares of Khasra No. 384 and imposed a penalty of 25,000, purely relying on the complaint by Respondent No. 5 and a disputed patwari report. 3. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Section 44(1) of the Code, 1959 before the Respondent No. 3 which was dismissed in a cryptic, non-speaking order, without 4 / 5 considering the patta issued in her favour or conducting any independent site inspection. The petitioner then filed a revision under Section 44(2) of the Code, 1959 before the Respondent No. 2 along with an application for stay under Section 52 of the Code, 1959, which too was rejected. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 sealed the petitioner's dhaba. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the entire proceedings under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 have been drawn on the basis of a private complaint made by Respondent No.5 and the respondent authorities have acted without verifying the facts. He would next contend that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners to produce evidence and no inspection of the spot was done in their presence. He would next contend that the appellate and Revisional Courts have completely ignored the fact that the petitioners hold a valid patta for Khasra No.390/1 and the construction over the said land is very old. He would lastly contend that the Dhaba is the only source of livelihood for the petitioner and her family and the sealing of the same has been done during pendency of revision proceedings, therefore, the instant petition may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5 / 5 7. From perusal of the documents it shows that initially a case was registered under Section 248 of the Code, 1959 on the basis of the complaint made by Respondent No.5 wherein on 04/09/2024 a temporary stay order was granted and the said order was subject of challenge in an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code, 1959, which was dismissed and against that a second appeal under Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959, was filed along with an application under Section 52 and the stay application has been rejected by order dated 22/07/2025. 8. Be that as it may, since the second appeal under Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959 is pending, therefore, Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the second appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959 expeditiously preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. Till the second appeal under Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959 filed by the petitioners is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu