-1- 2025:CGHC:53395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3873 of 2025 Shraddhanand Agarwal S/o Late Shri Bhola Prasad Agarwal, Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Bhaisa Para, Agarwal Saw Mill, Balodabazar P.S. and Tah. Balodabazar, Dist- Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, 4th Floor, Block-D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector, Dist- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dist.- Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Tahsildar, Balodabazar Dist.- Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Rajnarayan Sahu, S/o Late Shri Sundar Lal Sahu, Aged About 61 Years R/o Nehru Chowk, Dist- Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Resp No. 1 to 4/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No.5 : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.04 10:24:41 +0530 -2- 31/10/2025 Heard. 1. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with writ petition, documents submitted by respondent No.5 along with an application for taking additional documents on record as also submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, would show that initially an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code fo 1959”) was filed by respondent No.5 before Tahsildar and during pendency of that proceedings, one civil suit is also filed by him for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction. During pendency of civil suit, Tahsildar has considered and decided application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 on 20.05.2025 allowing the application and directing reinstatement of respondent No.5 on the disputed property. Order of Tahsildar was put to challenge by the petitioner in appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code of 1959 before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Thereafter, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, based upon which, Tahsildar has dismissed the appeal reserving liberty with appellant therein to revive his prayer after disposal of this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during pendency of this writ petition based on the order passed in WPC No.3440 of 2025 filed by respondent No.5, Tahsildar has issued notice of eviction from property/land subject matter of proceedings under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 against the petitioner. -3- 3. Upon putting a query to learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner herein has challenged the order of SDO (R) passed in appeal dated 14.08.2025, he submitted that according to his information, order has not been challenged. He, however, submits that in the facts of case, as interim protection is already granted in this writ petition, he may be permitted to take recourse to remedy of appeal or revision available under the Code of 1959 against order of Sub Divisional Officer (R) dated 14.08.2025 and the interim order may be extended for breathing time enabling the petitioner to file appeal along with application for grant of interim order against notice of eviction dated 18.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 vehemently opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the documents annexed along with writ petition as also documents submitted by respondent No.5 along with an application for taking additional documents on record. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where undisputedly there is an order passed under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 against the petitioner which he challenged in appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code of 1959 before Sub Divisional Officer (R), as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner it was erroneously dismissed and therefore petitioner wants to file appropriate proceedings against that order, I find it appropriate to dispose off this writ petition at this stage granting liberty to petitioner to take recourse to appropriate -4- proceedings as may be available to him under the Code of 1959 against the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (R) along with an application for grant of interim relief. 7. In the facts of case, as there is interim protection granted by this Court in favour of petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2025 which is still in force, it is directed that interim order passed in this writ petition shall remain in force for further period of three weeks enabling the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings against order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (R) along with an application for grant of interim relief. The interim protection shall come to an end after completion of three weeks and it will be subject to further order to be passed by the authority. 8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, writ petition stands disposed off. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen