1 2025:CGHC:56526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6026 of 2025 1 - Deepak Singh S/o Amarjit Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 47, Ramkrishna Nagar, Near Children Valley School, Mopka Distt. Bilaspur C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Department And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur C.G. 2 - The Collector, District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - The Tehsildar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Mohanlal Paikra S/o Tijram Paikra Aged About 75 Years R/o Geetanjali City Phase 1, Vill. Mopka, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Munish Paikra S/o Mohanlal Paikra Aged About 50 Years R/o Geetanjali City Phase 1, Vill. Mopka, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G. 7 - Satish Paikra Paikra S/o Mohanlal Paikra Aged About 55 Years R/o Geetanjali City Phase 1, Vill. Mopka, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G. 8 - Smt. Filomina Ekka W/o Shri Amrit Kumar Ekka Aged About 64 Years R/o H. No. D.B. 5 Chandela Vihar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that default as pointed out by the Office has been removed and prays for hearing of this case today BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.20 17:52:48 +0530 2 showing the urgency that notice of eviction has already been pasted in his house. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for hearing. 2. Learned State counsel raises an objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition stating that order under challenge is passed in appeal filed under Section 44 (1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In short ‘the Code, 1959’), before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) against which petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy available under the law to file second appeal U/s. 44 (2) of the Code,1959. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is in possession of government land, however, in a proceedings filed under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 against some other person, notice or memo issued in favour of Mohan Lal Painkara has been pasted in the house of petitioner upon which he came to know about certain proceeding is pending. After enquiry, he submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for his impleadment, however, that application was not considered and decided and final order has been passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). He contended that thereafter on 17.11.2025 also Tahsildar has issued notice in name of Mohan Lal Paikara, Satish Paikara, Manish Paikara and Pradeep Singh, which is also pasted in the house of petitioner, which is not on the private land, therefore, he may be granted interim protection till filing of appeal and till considering the application for grant of interim relief to be filed. He also contended that petitioner is in possession of land by constructing residential house over it since last more than 20 3 years and he is having electricity connection and LPG connection on that address. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grounds which is raised before this Court and further considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that he is residing in the house situated over the government land since long time and further considering that efficacious alternate remedy is available to petitioner of second appeal under Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959 I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage permitting petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the Code, 1959 within period of 10 days and if such appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the application for grant of interim relief, if filed along with appeal, expeditiously preferably within further period of two weeks thereafter.. 6. As the appeal and application may take sometime for its hearing, therefore, it is directed that the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to possession of the petitioner over the land for a period of six weeks from today. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram