1 2025:CGHC:61783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6643 of 2025 1 - Khemlal Verma S/o Rikhiram Verma Aged About 57 Years R/o Vill.- Suhela, Tah.- Simga, Distt.- Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar Tahsil - Tilda - Nevra, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate & Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 Issue a writ of mandamus and Quash the impugned notice dated 10.12.2025 (P-3) issued to the petitioner, and the action to be taken by the respondent in view of their activity dated 10.12.2025, where the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.22 12:45:40 +0530 2 petitioner but has been told by the R/3 herein, that the petitioner has been directed to evacuate the premises or would be done forcefully may kindly be stopped. 10.2 Direct the respondents not to proceed further, pursuant to issuance of the impugned notice dated 10.12.2025 to the petitioner, and the action to be taken by the respondent. 10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in circumstances of this case.” 2. Learned State counsel submits that encroached government land by petitioner is to be used for construction of Railway Over Bridge (ROB) and Railway Under Bridge (RUB). PIL challenging the construction of ROB and RUB was dismissed in WP(PIL) No. 52 of 2023, which was filed by one of the resident of the area. 3. Counsel for the State has produced the record of the case under Section 248 of the Code, 1959 proceeded against petitioner, who was noticed and also participated in the proceedings. 4. Perusal of the record would show that the order dated 12.06.2025 is passed by Tahsildar in a proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In short ‘the Code, 1959’) and thereafter, when encroachment is not removed, eviction warrant was issued on 10.12.2025, which is put to challenge. Petitioner has not challenged the order of eviction dated 12.06.2025 passed under Section 248 of the Code, 1959. The order passed by the Revenue Officer in exercise of powers under Section 248 of the Code, 1959 is appealable under the Code of 1959. 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the petitioner is having the efficacious alternate 3 remedy available under the law to challenge the order passed by Tahsildar in a proceeding under Section 248 of the Code, 1959, before the first appellate authority as provided under the Code of 1959. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram