1 2025:CGHC:11003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1104 of 2025 1 - Ashwani Kulmitra S/o Ganpat Kurmi, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Khatoliya, Tahsil Takhatpur And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ashwani Kumar Agrawal S/o Bharat Agrawal R/o Village Bhimpuri, Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Pandey with Mr. T. R. Patel, Advocates. For Respondents/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the eviction warrant dated 06/01/2025 issued by the respondent No.4 and also seeking quashment of the order dated 29/11/2024 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division in Revision No.35/A-68/2023-24. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.07 10:30:51 +0530 2 2. (A) Case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra No.52/1 area of 0.057 hectare situated at village Junapara P.H. No.2, R.I. Circle Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. The same was purchased by him on 05/07/2019, thereafter, the Khasra number renumbered as 52/8. According to the petitioner, when the persons namely Amit and Meena tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, he filed a civil suit before the competent jurisdictional civil Court, which is pending consideration. (B) During pendency of the said civil suit, the respondent No.1 herein filed an application before the respondent No.4 alleging that the petitioner is encroaching upon his land. On the basis of which, the respondent No.4 without hearing the petitioner, passed the interim order dated 26/07/2023. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, who vide order dated 20/03/2024 dismissed the same. Thereagainst, the petitioner filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, which has also been dismissed by the order impugned dated 29/11/2024. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned eviction warrant dated 06/01/2025 for removing the construction raised by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent No.4 on 16/01/2025, but till date, the same has not been considered. Thus, this petition. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action taken by the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary and while passing the impugned order, they exceeded the jurisdictional, despite the fact that the matter is pending before the competent jurisdictional civil Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State while supporting the impugned order and the eviction warrant would submit that the same have rightly been passed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 6. From bare perusal of the order dated 29/11/2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in the revision filed by the petitioner, it is manifest that the Commissioner after appreciating all the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective observed that though the petitioner filed the civil suit, but there is no interim order in the said suit and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC has also been rejected and the matter has been fixed for evidence. It has also been observed that the Tahsildar and the Additional Collector have rightly passed the orders. 7. The order impugned passed by the Commissioner is just and proper. There is no infirmity and illegality in the said order, as the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC has 4 been rejected by the trial Court in a civil suit filed by the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, he may challenge the same in an appropriate forum. The Commissioner has rightly dismissed the revision as the civil suit filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the competent jurisdictional Civil Court. 8. Having considered the entire facts situation of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner failed to establish his case by placing sufficient and cogent material. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep