1 2025:CGHC:40193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1447 of 2025 1 - Gaindlal Sinha S/o Late Thakur Ram Sinha Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Tarighat Tehsil Patan District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Durg Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Tehsildar Patan District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional O.cer (Revenue) Patan District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - Gram Panchayat Tarighat Through Secretary Tehsil Patan District - Durg) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. For respondent No. 5 : Mr. Gurudev I Sharan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. The present petition is 5led by the petitioners with following relief(s): “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Tehsildar to produce all the records of the proceedings after remanding of the case. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased 2 to set aside/quash the impugned eviction warrant dated 06.03.2025 and direct the Tehsildar to draw fresh proceedings. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s.), which is deemed )t and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been 5led by the petitioner against the eviction order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Tehsildar whereby on the basis of the set aside order dated 15.02.2021 by the concerned SDO(R ), the learned Tehsildar has again issued eviction warrant against the petitioner without hearing of proceedings under Section 248 of CG Land Revenue Code 1958. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's mother had purchased a land from one person named Jethamal vide registered sale deed on dated 14.02.1994, whereby executed in survey no. 482/1 admeasuring area of 1.55 acres situated at Village Tarighat, Tahsil-Patan, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh, whereby the tahsildar in Revenue Case по. 201803100900055/408-68 year 2020-21, passed an order dated 15.02.2021 ог removal of encroachment by the petitioner against which the an appeal petitioner had S.D.O. (Revenue), 5led before Tahsil Patan, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh, and the S.D.O. (Revenue) vide their order dated 22.02.2022 stayed the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 15.02.20212, which is Annexure P/4 in this petition, whereby vide order dated 14.07.2021, S.D.O. (Revenue) had allowed the appeal and set aside the order of 3 Tehsildar and remanded back to the Tehsildar and directed the Tehsildar to inquire the matter as per law and thereafter pass the order under Section 248 of CG Land Revenue Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar has not properly acted in the case and fail to understand that as per order dated 14.07.2021 the original order dated 15.02.2021 has already set aside, however the Tehsildar again is relying upon the same order. As per order dated 14.07.2021, the learned Sub Divisional O.cer (Revenue) has set aside the order dated 15.02.2021 and has directed the Tehsildar for fresh hearing the case but the learned Tehsildar has not complied the above order. Various proceedings are still pending before diDerent forums of same suit land and inspite of that, the Tehsildar has passed the above order and the collector has already passed the order of status quo vide order dated 09.01.2025 but still the tehsildar and the old sarpanch are trying to evict the petitioner form his peaceful possession of the agricultural land. The mother of the petitioner has purchased the above land vide registered sale deed dated 14.02.1994 and still no any competent court has declared the above sale deed null and void. Due to personal grievances of old sarpanch the above case was registered against the petitioner. Due to mistake of certain revenue o.cers the petitioner land has been recorded as ceiling land and the petitioner is trying to mutate his name as land owner and if he is removed from the peaceful possession he will have to face Ir-repairable loss. Hence this petition. 4 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that Respondent No. 5 had 5led the writ petition before the Hon'ble Court vide WPC 875/2025 seeking direction from the authorities/answering respondents to comply with the order dated 15.02.2021, by which the Naib Tehsildar had directed the removal of encroachment from the present petitioner and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 13.02.2025, had directed the Tehsildar to comply with its own order dated 15.02.2021, as there was no interim protection granted to the present petitioner and in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in WPC no. 875/2025 the Tehsildar had passed an order of eviction vide impugned order dated 06.03.2025. The present Respondent No. 5 had not mentioned the above said fact in their petition WPC No. 875/2025. The order of S.D.O. (Revenue), Tahsil-Patan, District Durg, passed in revenue case no. 20210210006000838A/68 year 2020-21, and had obtained the order dated 13.02.2025 before this Hon'ble Court against the present petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the respondent No.3 has issued eviction warrant in compliance of the memo dated 11/03/2025 issued by Joint Collector, on behalf of Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) and the Joint Collector issued memo dated 11/03/2025 to the respondent No.3 & 4 for compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in WPC No. 875/2025 and WPC No. 610/2025. He further submits that though the order of respondent No.4 passed way back in the year 2021 by which the 5 respondent No.4 has remitted back the matter to respondent No.3 to decide the matter a fresh but till today the respondent No.3 has not decided the matter in compliance of order dated 14/07/2021 passed by the respondent No.4 and also one other application which was preferred by the petitioner under section 11(5) (6) of the Act has also been decided by the respondent No.2 on 17/03/2025 by which the respondent No.2 has also remitted back the matter to the court below but still the matter is pending and the petitioner is enjoying the illegal encroachment over the government land, hence therefore it is humbly prayed by the present respondent No.5 to pass a suitable direction in shape of order to the concerned Revenue authority to decide the case of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 8. On perusal of records, it is crystal clear that the order of removal dated 15.02.2021 has already been set aside vide order dated 14.07.2021 by the SDO (R ) stating therein that since 1994-1995 the mother of petitioner is titled and possession holder of the said land and the Tehsildar has not considered the facts and passed an order of removal of encroachment dated 15.02.2021, therefore SDO (R) has remanded the matter to the Tehsildar and directed the Tehsildar for fresh hearing in the case, however the learned Tehsildar has not complied the said order and has again passed the eviction warrant against the petitioner dated 06.03.2025. 6 9. In view of above, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter is still pending before the respondent No. 3 -Tehsildar and the concerned Tehsildar shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law/rules/regulations as expeditiously as possible. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti