1 2025:CGHC:58056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6040 of 2025 1 - Santosh Pathak S/o Vijay Kumar Pathak Aged About 42 Years R/o North Ring Road, Kedarpur, Near Mission Chowk, Ambikapur, P.S.- Ambikapur Kotwali, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.) 3 - Sdo (R) Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Vijay Kumar Pathak S/o Late Gambhir Pathak Aged About 61 Years Occupation Government Job (Accountant), R/o North Ring Road, Kedarpur, Near Mission Chowk, Ambikapur, P.S.- Ambikapur Kotwali, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Manju Pathak W/o Vijay Kumar Pathak Aged About 60 Years Occupation - Housewife, R/o North Ring Road, Kedarpur, Near Mission Chowk, Ambikapur, P.S.- Ambikapur Kotwali, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 28 /11/2025 2 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Collector, Surguja (C.G.) and consequently quash order dated 20.08.2025 passed by SDO ® Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.), as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings of Case No. Revenue Case No. 165/B-121/2022-23 pending before SDO ® Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit with regard to this case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner has already filed a civil suit with respect to the house subject matter of proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Senior Citizen Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Surguja and have also raised an objection that the Tribunal which is considering the application submitted by the Respondents No. 4 & 5 herein is not properly constituted and therefore, the proceedings pending before the Tribunal be stayed. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Samtola Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 669. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that the application filed by the Respondents No. 4 & 5 is still to be considered on merits and which can only after recording of evidence of both the parties. He also pointed out that the Sub-Divisional Officer after considering the objection in the impugned order has fixed the next date for the presence of the other members of the Tribunal and the petitioner, if is aggrieved with proceedings initiated against him on the ground that civil suit is pending, he can raise all the grounds as raised in this petition before the Tribunal. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) would show that in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal, the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur called for the presence of other members of the Tribunal and therefore, as of now, it appears that the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur has taken note of provisions under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to constitute the Tribunal in accordance with law. If for any reason, the petitioner in future finds that the proceedings in the application filed by the Respondents No. 4 & 5 is not being properly constituted before the Tribunal, the petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. So far as, the merits of the claim fo the petitioner is concerned, the decision is yet to be taken by the competent authority, based on the pleadings, the grounds to be raised by the petitioner and evidence, whether the order of eviction is to be passed or not and therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to consider the said grounds, as it is still sub-judice before the competent Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to raise all the grounds as raised in this writ petition before the Tribunal concerned and if such a ground is raised, the concerned Tribunal shall consider and decide the same while passing the final order. 7. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY