1 / 2 2025:CGHC:47188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4898 of 2025 Sanjay Prakash Sao S/o Late Shri Ramkumar Sao Aged About 54 Years R/o Barethpara, Village And Post, Dongri, P.S. And Tehsil Balouda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue Mahanadi, Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar/naib Tahsildar Tahsil Balouda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Ramayan Sahu Shiksha Karmi And Director D.R.Smriti Shikshan Samiti And Bala Jayanti Cum, Sanskrit Vidyalay, Village Dongri, Janpad Panchayat Balouda, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Sarpanch/secretary Gram Panchayat Dongri, Tehsil Balouda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.F.H. Rizvi, Advocate For State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 15/09/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is mainly challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 to implement and enforce the eviction order (Annexure P/2) passed in Revenue Case No.5/A-68/2017-18 by the Tehsildar Baloda dated 25/06/2018 which was subsequently upheld by the Sub Divisional Officer (R) , ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.15 19:00:24 +0530 2 / 2 Janjgir-Champa by order dated 13/10/2023 as well as against the non-execution of the order dated 04/08/2025 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur whereby the second appeal filed by the Respondent No.5. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Respondent No.5 has encroached upon the public utility land bearing Khasra No.446/1, Village Dongri against which a clear eviction order by the Tahsildar has been passed on 25/06/2018 and the subsequent appeals filed by the Private Respondent were also dismissed, however, despite that the respondent authorities have failed to remove the encroachment. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have perused the documents. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner was not a party before the Tehsildar and the SDO, in such eventuality the petitioner has no locus to challenge the orders passed by the SDO and Tehsildar. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu