1 2025:CGHC:23144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 5802 of 2024 1 - Ashwani Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Mangturam Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Vil- lage Badra, (Th.), Tah. Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Depart- ment, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector Mungeli, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Bhekchand Sahu President Saraswati Sishu Mandir Committee R/o Vill Badra, (Th. ) Tah. Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Gram Panchayat Badra (Tha) Through Sarpanch Vill. Badra (Tha.) Tah. Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Adv. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11.06.2025 1. With the consent of both the respective parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 2 27.05.2024 passed by the learned respondent no. 3/Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate Sargaon, district Mungeli in Case No. 202406251000001/A-68/2023-2024 as per Annexure P/1, wherein the respondent no. 3 has granted injunction and stay the further construction made by the petitioner which is benefitted and approved by the Gram Panchayat under benefit of Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojna. That the construction has been made by the petitioner over the land bearing Khasra No. 437 over which is in peaceful continuous possession since 30-40 years but without any legal right the respondent no. 4 has made a false complaint of encroachment and the respondent no. 3 has without jurisdiction granted the injunction which is illegal, improper and contrary to the law. Hence by way of filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: (a) that, the Hon’ble court kindly be pleased to issue a writ of CERTIORARI setting aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure P/1) and may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding of the Revenue Case No. 202406251000001/A-68/2023-24 pending before Tahsildar Sargaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent authority to remove the petitioner from his peaceful continuous possession over the subject land. (c) That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned 3 order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 is illegal, improper and in excess to its jurisdiction. The respondent no. 3 or any other revenue authority has no jurisdiction to grant injunction and only Civil Court has the jurisdiction to grant any injunction. An ex-parte impugned order had been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner which is clear violation of principle of natural justice. 4. He submits that the petitioner is in peaceful possession over his ownership land and he has not encroached upon any land. The petitioner has invested huge amount of his hard earned money and the substantial construction of over 50% has been completed till now. The petitioner has no other alternate accommodation and his family is facing serious day to day difficulty in survival. 5. That the concerned Patwari has clearly mentioned in his report that the petitioner is raising construction over land bearing part of Khasra No. 4437 and not over the land of respondent no. 04 therefore the complaint made is vague and baseless. No enquiry has been conducted by the Tahsildar regarding the allegation of encroachment. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the relief sought by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and contended 4 that since the order has been passed in a revenue proceeding, as such the challenge to it should have been made in an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. On perusal of the record, I have found that the petitioner has not filed the order of the Tahsildar under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code. It is also pertinent to mention here that Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code of 1959 Provides as under : “44. Appeal and appellate authorities. (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Code or the rules made thereunder- (a) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, whether or not the officer passing the order is invested with the powers of the Collector-to the Sub-Divisional Officer; (b) if such order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, whether or not invested with the powers of the Collector-to the Collector; (c) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Settlement Officer-to the Settlement Officer; (d) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer in respect of whom a direction has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 12 or sub-section (2) of Section 21-to such Revenue Officer as the State Government may direct; (e) if such order is passed by a Collector whether exercising the powers of Collector or Settlement Officer, during the currency of the term of settlement- to the [Board of Revenue] [Substituted by Act 5 No. 17 of 2008]; (f) if such order is passed by a Settlement Officer, whether exercising the powers of Settlement Officer or the powers of a Collector in connection with any settlement operation unless otherwise expressly provided-to the Settlement Commissioner; (g) if such order is passed by the [Commissioner or the] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008] Settlement Commissioner-to the Board. Save as otherwise provided a second appeal shall lie against every order passed in first appeal under this Code or the rules made thereunder- (I) by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector to the Commissioner; (ii) by the Settlement Officer to the Settlement Commissioner; (iii) by the Commissioner to the Board -9 (a) if the original order has in the first appeal been varied or reversed otherwise than in a matter of cost; or (b) on any of the following grounds and no other, namely, - (I) that the order is contrary to law or usage having the force of law; or (ii) that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having force of law; or (iii) that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Code, which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits. 9. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the Tahsildar has issued the notice to the petitioner under Section 248(1) of the Code, 1959. 10. Therefore, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the Code, 1959. Thus, in view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. However, petitioner is at liberty to 6 approach before the concerned appellate authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all relevant documents including patta of the suit land and in-turn the concerned appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal as per law. Meanwhile, no coersive steps/action shall be taken against the petitioner by the respondents only for the above period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) alfiza Judge