1 2025:CGHC:54302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5865 of 2025 Santosh Joshi S/o Mr. Arjun Joshi Aged About 40 Years R/o Shivnagar, Kanker, Tehsil - Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Division Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Collector Kanker, District - Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker, District - Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Tehsildar Kanker, Tehsil - Kanker, District - Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Justice Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge) Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking following reliefs:- ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.11.07 14:12:07 +0530 2 “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to produce entire records pertaining to the case, before this Hon’ble Court. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the impugned notice dated 29.10.2025(Anneuxre P-1) issued by respondent no. 5 as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner herein and further for the reason that the same is against the principles of natural justice. C. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem ,t in the facts and circumstances of the case. D. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this writ petition is filed on the ground that Tahsildar/Respondent no. 5 has issued notice for removing encroachment by 04.11.2025. He also submits that against the order dated 27.01.2025 for eviction passed by Tahsildar/Respondent no. 5 in the revenue proceedings, petitioner has filed first appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (“in short Code of 1959”) which was dismissed and thereafter, petitioner has preferred a second appeal as provided under Section 44(2) of the Code of 1959 and the case is fixed by second appellate authority on 12th November, 2025. He further submits that as the notice for removing the encroachment has already been served, prayer made in this writ petition be allowed by quashing impugned notice dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by Tahsildar/Respondent no. 5. 3. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 4. Perusal of record would show that first appellate authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Respondent no. 4 has considered the appeal on merits and taking note of the records of Tahsildar/Respondent no. 5 in revenue proceedings have found that petitioner is in possession of Najul Land and based upon which order of eviction has been passed, being petitioner as an encroacher. The order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) was challenged in an appeal filed on 03.11.2025 i.e. after receiving the 3 notice Annexure P-1 dated 29.10.2025. It is also the submission of counsel for petitioner before this Court that appeal before the first appellate authority was filed only after notice of eviction from the Tehsildar was issued along with an application for grant of Interim Relief. 5. Perusal of application for grant of Interim Relief of stay under Section 52 of the Code of 1959, would show that petitioner in the proceedings pending before the Commissioner/respondent no. 2 in second appeal has not made any submission with regard to receipt of eviction notice and the date fixed i.e. 04.11.2025. The petitioner was aware of the eviction notice which was issued against him on 29.09.2025 and last date for removing encroachment fixed therein was 04.11.2025. This writ petition was filed on 03.11.2025. Counsel for petition also made a submission that the party has approached him on 31st of October, 2025, however, instead of advising the petitioner to make application for urgent hearing along with showing urgency of the notice issued by the Tahsildar for removing the encroachment by 04.11.2025, this writ petition is filed. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case where petitioner has already taken recourse to second appeal as provided under the Code of 1959 before respondent no. 2/Commissioner, Bastar Division Jagdalpur, petitioner as having a remedy to file an application for urgent hearing of the case pointing out the notice of Tahsildar/respondent no. 5 for eviction, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, accordingly it is dismissed. 7. However, in larger interest of justice it is directed that no proceedings of removal of encroachment shall be initiated for a period of seven days, enabling petitioner to press application for interim relief in pending appeal before Commissioner/Respondent no. 2. C.C. Today. sd/- alza (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE