1 2025:CGHC:50910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2631 of 2025 Mr. Abhishek Singh Gautam S/o Mr. Awadhesh Singh Gautam Aged About 31 Years Partner Of M/s. Awadesh Singh Gautam, Place Of Business At Village- Nakulnar, District- South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh – 494552. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District- South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub-Registrar District- South Bastar-Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tehsildar Tehsil- Badebacheli, District- South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tehsildar Tehsil- Kuakonda, District- South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Badebacheli, District- South Bastar-Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Badebacheli, District- South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 8 - The Engineer-In-Chief Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 9 - The Superintending Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Project Circle Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 2 10 - The Nodal Officer Jila Nirman Samiti Dantewada, District- South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 11 - The Tehsildar Tehsil - Dantewada, District- South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “RELIEF(S) SOUGHT: 10.1 Quash and set aside Respondent No.11's letter dated 27.03.2025 addressed to the Petitioner, 10.2 Quash and set aside Respondent No.02's Order dated 18.03.2025 addressed to Respondent No. 03 for being wholly without any jurisdiction; 10.3 Pass any other order or issue such directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashment of the letter dated 27.03.2025, whereby the petitioner has been informed about passing of the order dated 18.03.20252 by respondent No.2 directing respondent No.3 to restraint on the alienation of the immovable properties in the name of the petitioner's father, his mother, and his sibling, 3 located within the territorial limits (District Bijapur, Dantewada, Sukma and Narayanpur) until further orders. Said correspondence has been made based on a pending proceeding quaproposed recovery of alleged additional payment of INR 2,01,06,117/- made to the Petitioner's firm. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without any authority of law, respondent-authority conerned has passed the order Annexure P-1 (Colly), hence, petitioner has came up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 5. Learned State Counsel contended that as per instruction received, he has placed before this Court order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the respondent/Tahsildar, Badebacheli. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including the order dated 13.03.2025 which is taken on record. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 05.03.2025 passed in WPC No.436/2025, this Court has passed the following order/direction: “10. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned demand note dated 16/12/2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner, as per the recommendation made by the enquiry team in its report dated 09/04/2024, in accordance with law and after following principles of natural justice including affording due opportunity of 4 hearing to the petitioner. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above” 8. Order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the respondent/Tahsildar reads as under: “ प्रकरण आज पेश । प्रकरण तहसीलदार क आकण्डा क न्यायालया सी प्रप्त । प्रकरण क अवलकन किकया। माननया उच्च न्याया लया कि लसीपेर द्वार तहसीलदार ड़े चेल द्वार जर मा$ग क& सी'चेन क खारिरज किकया गया ह*। अत+ प्रकरण खारिरज किकया जत ह*। प्रकरण न - - कर दा-दा- ह।" 9. In view of above, it is crystal clear that the impugned demand note dated 16/12/2024 has already been quashed by this Court and on that basis proceeding initiated by the respondent/Tahsildar against the petitioner's father has been closed. 10. For the foregoing reason/discussion, writ petition is allowed. The letter dated 27.03.2025 issued by the respondent-Tahsildar & order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the respondent-Collector (Annexure P-1) are hereby quashed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-