1 / 3 2025:CGHC:50573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5346 of 2025 Smt. Peelabai Chandrakar W/o Shri Ashwani Chandrakar Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Nayapara, Bodri, Tahsil- Bodri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Tahsildar, Bodri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nishi Ankush Tiwari S/o Chandraprakash Tiwari R/o Village- Bodri, Tahsil- Bodri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 06/10/2025 passed by Respondent/ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in Appeal E Court No.202410075700009/0701/Appeal/49/B121/2024-25 whereby the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.10.13 18:40:09 +0530 2 / 3 application under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 filed by the petitioner, has been rejected. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the State Government has issued patta in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.71/3, admeasuring area 990 sq. ft. situated at Ward No.4, Nayapara, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur, however, despite that Respondent No.3 has illegally dispossessed the petitioner from the aforesaid land and has started construction of house over the said land. He would next contend that being aggrieved by the said act, the petitioner has filed an application before the Tahsildar Bodri for staying the illegal construction and the Tahsildar has rejected the said application by order dated 11/03/2025. He would next contend that the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 11/03/2025 along with the application for condonation of delay and application for grant of interim relief. He would next contend that the Respondent No.2 by the order dated 06/10/2025 has condoned the delay but rejected the application for grant of interim relief. He would lastly contend that the impugned order may be set aside because if the house is constructed then the same would adversely affect the right, title and ownership of the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the 3 / 3 documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of the documents and order would show that no final order has been passed by the concerned SDO which is an interlocutory order and not a final order and the appeal is still pending before the SDO and against the interlocutory order passed by the SDO, this Court cannot exercise the extraordinary power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, I am not inclined to allow this petition. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to afresh petition if cause of action arises in future. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall not be influenced by the order passed by this Court while deciding the appeal on merits. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu