1 2025:CGHC:52719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5359 of 2024 Bhushan Prasad Tiwari S/o Mr. Shankar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 58 Years R/o Patwari Halka No. 7/10, Village Dandesara, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 29.10.2025 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure A-1) which is an interim order passed in appeal 2 by Divisional Commissioner, Durg, Chhattisgarh rejecting prayer for grant of interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner in his appeal pending consideration before the Commissioner. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 24.10.2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a priest in temple at village Dandesara Tehsil and District Durg and the petitioner is performing the pooja in that temple for almost 14 years. He further submits that some social elements of the village made a complaint against the petitioner before Collectore and thereafter vide its order dated 03.01.2024 in Revenue Case No. 202307100100032/B-121/2022-23 passed an order against the petitioner and the o昀케ciating Nyab Tehsildar was appointed as administrator of the temple and further directions was issued that the Gram Panchayat may proceed for appointment of new priest. He stated that no any notice of the above stated revenue case was issued to the petitioner and there is a 昀椀nding in the impugned order that the statements of the petitioner was recorded before the Sub-Divisional O昀케cer whereas he has never recorded his statement in particular case. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner bearing case no. 405/B-121/ year 2023-24. He further submits that the revision was heard on 03.10.2024 and an application for interim relief under Section 52 of Land Revenue Code, 1959 was also 昀椀led and pressed upon, however, the Divisional Commissioner has posted the matter on 28.11.2024 dismissing the application of the petitioner for interim relief. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been condemned without giving opportunity of being heard by the Collector, therefore, he submits that some interim relief may be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission and submits that there are certain grave allegations against the petitioner with regard to misuse of temple funds and property and after due enquiry, the enquiry o昀케cer found the allegations proved against the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2024 and Divisional Commissioner did not 昀椀nd any good ground in favour of the petitioner to stay the impugned order, therefore, there is no illegality in order dated 03.10.2024. After hearing counsel for the parties, on perusal of the documents available on record and considering the submission made by Mr. Tiwari that before passing the order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) neither any 3 opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor his statements were recorded. It is directed that the petitioner shall not be removed from priest and it is also directed that the petitioner shall not taken any 昀椀nancial decision with regard to temple funds and property.” 3. Today learned State counsel submits that he may be granted further some time to file reply, however, considering on merits of the case that the appeal is still pending consideration before the Appellate Authority, Durg and this writ petition is filed against the interim order only, also perusal of the document enclosed would show that the appeal filed by the petitioner before Divisional Commissioner, Durg is pending consideration prior to the month of October, 2024 i.e. since last about one year, therefore, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition keeping intact the interim order passed by this Court till decision of the appeal filed by petitioner before Divisional Commissioner, Durg. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to Divisional Commissioner, Durg to decide pending appeal bearing 450/B-121/year 2023-24 dated 03.10.2024 at the earliest preferably within further period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court. 5. Till decision on the appeal, interim order dated 03.10.2024 passed in this writ petition shall remain in force. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.10.31 18:12:21 +0530