1 / 3 2025:CGHC:61952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6628 of 2025 Saheb Ram Sidar (Gond) S/o Pila Babu Aged About 90 Years R/o Village Kauhakund, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Dinesh Kumar Shadangi S/o Late Banshidhar Shadangi, R/o Naya Ganj, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vishnu Sahu, Advocate For State/Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No.4/ proposed caveator : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 19/12/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 90 years old man and straightway eviction notice was issued on 30.11.2025. Petitioner was not aware of any proceedings earlier Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.12.22 09:56:00 +0530 2 / 3 initiated against him by any of the authority. 2. Learned counsel for the State would oppose submission and would submit that from perusal of Annexure P-1 it is clearly appearing that eviction notice is issued pursuant to order dated 05.09.2018 passed by Tahsildar in revenue proceeding. Pursuant to the observation made by this Court on the last date of hearing he has called entire records of revenue case bearing No.18-A-70/2014-15 and from order sheet available in record it appears that petitioner participated in proceedings, he also submitted affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and petitioner submitted reply to application filed under Section 250 of Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code of 1959”) by one Dinesh Kumar Shadangi on whose application proceedings under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 was initiated. 3. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.4/Caveator also submits that from contents of eviction notice Annexure P1, it is appearing that notice is issued pursuant to order passed by Tahsildar on 05.09.2018 and therefore submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that eviction notice is issued without any proceeding initiated against the petitioner is not sustainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of proceedings initiated on application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959. 5. From proceedings, it appears that notices were issued and thereafter non-applicant therein I.e. petitioner appeared through Advocate and thereafter order is passed. 6. Proceedings of Tahsildar is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that thumb impression of petitioner was obtained by 3 / 3 some person but petitioner did not appear before Tahsildar for want of knowledge of proceedings under Section 250 of Code of 1959. Order of Tahsildar is not under challenge in this petition and under Section 44 (1) of the Code of 1959 petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy of filing appeal before the authority as mentioned under the Code of 1959. 7. Petitioner is stated to be in possession of land in dispute for last about more than 25 years and therefore I find it appropriate to dispose off this writ petition at this stage permitting the petitioner to challenge the order passed under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 by Tahsildar dated 05.09.2018 in accordance with the provision under the Code of 1959. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is old aged person and if he is evicted pursuant to Annexure P1 he will adversely suffer and therefore for a limited period enabling petitioner to file appeal and also application for grant of interim relief/stay some interim protection may be granted . 9. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances of case, it is directed that for a period of one month from today no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, enabling him to file appeal and application for interim relief, if any, challenging order dated 05.09.2018 passed by Tahsildar. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen