1 2025:CGHC:16329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 559 of 2015 1 - Jitendra Yadav S/o Shri Parasram Yadav Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Kota Colony, Near Gayatri Mandir, Kota, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Pravin Kumar Soni S/o Late Kamal Narayan Soni Aged About 53 Years R/o Purana Ganj Mandi, Ramsagar Para, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mr. J. R. Markam, Presently Posted As Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None appears even in the second round. For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.04.2025 REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner Division, Raipur dated 27.04.2015 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case as depicted in the petition are that the petitioner was raising a construction over Survey No.129/11 area 0.018 hectare situated at Village Kota, Tehsil and District Raipur. Respondent No.5 moved an application for the grant of stay before the concerned Tehsildar which was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2014. The petitioner challenged that order before the Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2014 and thereafter a revision was preferred before the Commissioner Division Raipur and it was also dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2015. 3. Learned Courts below observed that the application moved by respondent No.5 for demarcation is still pending consideration before the Tehsildar and till its disposal, it would be appropriate to stay the construction which was being raised by the petitioner. 4. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in two rounds. 5. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents would argue that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the Tehsildar, Collector and Commissioner. They would further argue that the petitioner was raising the construction over part of the land of respondent No.5 and an application for demarcation was also pending, therefore, a stay was granted by the concerned Tehsildar on 05.07.2014 and that order was affirmed by the Collector and the 3 Commissioner. They would also submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and further, there was an interim stay passed by the concerned Tehsildar in favour of respondent No.5, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha