1 2025:CGHC:52884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5689 of 2025 James Ram S/o Premnath Bhandari Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Tehsil Narharpur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - Tehsildar Naraharpur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 4 - Lakhan Ram S/o Vikram Aged About 42 Years Caste Rawat, R/o Village Jamgaon, Tehsil Narharpur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sohail Afzal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Justice Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 30.10.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 Quash the impugned order and notice dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Tehsildar, Narharpur; 10.2 Declare that the proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code are not maintainable against the petitioner’s private property; 10.3 Pass such further order(s) as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was served with a notice of eviction pursuant to the final order dated 24.10.2025 initiated against him under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The order under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 of reinstating Bhumi Swami i.e. respondent no. 4 was passed only on 24.10.2025 and on same day notice of eviction was also issued. He further contended that after passing of order remedy available to petitioner is of preferring an appeal under Section 44 of the Code of 1959, however, which requires to obtain certified copy of order passed against him and only thereafter, an appeal can be preferred, which takes a considerable time, however, the concerned authority i.e. respondent no. 3 has not taken into consideration this aspect and issued eviction notice on the same date of passing of order. 3. Learned counsel for State opposes submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that according to submission made by counsel for petitioner, the petitioner is having a remedy of appeal under Section 44 of the Code and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He also submits that after receiving the advance copy and getting knowledge of listing of the matter, he has sought instructions from concerned authority. In the proceedings under Section 250 of Code, 1959 petitioner has participated and has cross-examined the witness also examine witnesses in his behalf and only thereafter, the order dated 24.10.2025 under Section 250 of Code, 1959 was passed. The petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and, therefore, present petition is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed with cost. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and also perused documents placed on record. 5. Document Annexure P-1 is the notice issued by respondent no. 3/Tahsildar for removing possession of petitioner from the land which is the subject matter of notice mentioning that notice was issued pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2025. Counsel for State has obtained order sheets of aforementioned proceedings under Section 250 as also the final order passed on 24.10.2025 and placed before this Court for kind perusal. 6. Perusal of the entire documents would show that order under Section 250 of the Code against the petitioner was passed on 24.10.2025 and on same day notice for removing the possession was issued. Though there is provision of appeal under Section 44 but appeal memo is to be supported by certified copy of order which is to be challenged by appellant therein. 7. During course of argument State counsel pointed out that petitioner has also obtained certified copy of order, which was not disputed by the counsel for petitioner, but stated that as per his information certified copy of the order dated 24.10.2025 passed under Section 250 was received by petitioner yesterday only. 8. Considering entirety of facts of the case and also that petitioner is having a remedy under law i.e. under Section 44 of Code of 1959, of challenging the order passed under Section 250 of Code of 1959, in the opinion of this Court petitioner is entitled for some protection for limited period of time, enabling him to prefer an appeal along with an application of interim relief before appellate authority. 9. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail remedy under law of appeal against the order dated 24.10.2025 passed under Section 250 of Code of 1959. It is directed that for a period of two weeks status-quo as it exist today with respect to the possession of petitioner over the disputed land shall be maintained by the respective parties. 4 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of. C.C. Today sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.10.30 16:52:50 +0530