1 2025:CGHC:45550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4732 of 2025 Satguru Sewa Samiti Pamgarh Through The President Shivdayal, S/o Baliram Suryawanshi, Aged About 80 Years, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Krishna Ratre S/o Dhaniram Ratre Aged About 45 Years R/o Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh And District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/09/2025 2 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents, particularly Respondents No. 2 and 4 to execute the order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P/1) and remove encroachment made by Respondent No. 5 over the land bearing Khasra No. 683/1 situated at Village Pamgarh, Patwari Halka No. 16, Tahsil Pangarh, District Janjgir-Champa, admeasuring 1.523 hectares belonging to the Petitioner/Satguru Sewa Samiti as the stay order passed by the civil court in Civil suit No. 19-A/2024 vide order dated 27.07.2024 restraining the implementation of revenue authorities' orders for six months has ended; 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may restrain Respondent No. 5 from encroaching on the land of the Petitioner/Samiti in accordance with the procedure established by law; 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present petition is filed seeking effective implementation and execution of the eviction order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.4/Tahsildar against Respondent No. 5. It is apt to state here the fact that the Petitioner/Samiti is the lawful holder and recorded title-holder of land bearing Khasra No. 683/1, admeasuring 1.523 hectares, situated in Village Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, as per the official revenue records. The said land was illegally encroached upon by Respondent No. 5, a shop owner, without any legal authority. Upon complaint, the competent revenue authority, Respondent No. 3 4/Tahsildar, after due inquiry, passed an order in favour of the Petitioner, directing the removal of the encroachment vide order dated 19.02.2024. The said order was affirmed by Respondent No. 3/Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 19.07.2024. However, Respondent No. 5, filed a suit along with an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC before the Additional Judge, Pamgarh, to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Janjgir, and obtained an order of status quo/injunction vide order dated 27.07.2024. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner/Samiti filed an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, which was rejected by the Court of Principal District Judge, Janjgir-Champa, CG vide order dated 12.12.2024. 3. Learned State counsel contended that the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 regarding declaration of title and the possession of the disputed land and the same cannot be granted in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the civil suit between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 has already been pending before the competent Civil Court and stay order has been passed by the competent Civil 4 Judge and thereafter the appeal filed by the petitioner under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, which was rejected by vide order dated 12.12.2024 by the Court of Principle District Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Considering the fact that the rights and title of the parties shall be decided by the concerned Civil Court only, therefore, there is no ground to entertain this petition. 6. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of given liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the concerned Civil Court or competent Forum. 7. With the aforesaid observation and consideration, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant