1 2025:CGHC:7806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 791 of 2025 1 - Nutan Rajwade S/o Late Shri H.S. Rajwade Aged About 52 Years R/o Village-Kanki, Tahsil - Barpali, Distt - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector And District Magistrate Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil - Barpali, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl A.G. with Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 13/02/2025 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.17 17:19:38 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 27/12/2024 passed by the Tahsildar in Revenue Case No.202411052800001/A-68/2024-25, by which, the Tahsildar has passed the order of the removal of encroachment under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar is under challenge in a revision proceeding before the Commissioner, Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, C.G. in Revenue Case No.202412990200005/A- 68/2023-24. The revision has been entertained by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and an interim order has been passed by the Commissioner directing the parties to maintain status quo, by staying the interim order dated 20/12/2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of the said fact brought to the notice of the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar proceeded and passed an order of removal of alleged encroachment dated 27/12/2024 against the petitioner. When the petitioner produced the order of the Commissioner, then the Tahsildar stopped the proceeding and on 30/12/2024 sent the record to the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division for hearing in the revision filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the order, by which, removal of encroachment has been passed under Section 248 of the Act, 1959 is still remained as it is, as in spite of the fact that in the revision, the entire proceeding is 3 under challenge before the Commissioner. Hence, the order dated 27/12/2024 is deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that pursuance to the direction of this Court dated 06/02/2025, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent/Tahsildar narrating as under:- “That on on 27/12/2024 at about 3 p.m., certified copy of the order dated 26/12/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division has been produced by the petitioner and after going through the said order, in compliance of the order dated 26/12/2024, the effect and operation of the order dated 27/12/2024 which is under challenge in the instant petition, has immediately been stayed till further order.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders as well as affidavit filed by the respondent/Tahsildar. 5. From perusal of affidavit of the Tahsildar, it appears that when the petitioner failed to produce the interim order passed by Commissioner on 26/12/2024, the Tahsildar has proceeded in passing the order of removal of encroachment under Section 248 of the Code, 1959, but as and when the order of the Commissioner was produced before the Tahsildar, he did not proceeded further in the said proceeding. The revision is presently pending before the Commissioner, Bilaspur. Even the record of the Tahsildar has already been sent to the 4 Commissioner, Bilaspur for hearing in the revision filed by the petitioner. 6. As the revision filed by the petitioner questioning the entire proceeding of Section 248 of the Code, 1959 by the Tahsildar is pending before the Commissioner, the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division shall look into the order dated 27/12/2024 which has been passed by the Tahsildar in spite of entertainment of the revision filed by the petitioner where the Commissioner himself has passed the interim order by staying the order dated 20/12/2024 and directed the parties to maintain status quo over the land in question, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner Bilaspur, to decide the revision filed by the petitioner within fifty days in accordance with law by taking into notice of the order dated 27/12/2024, which has already been passed by the Tahsildar by exercising the power under Section 248 of the Act, 1959. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority to pursue the relief sought in Clause 10.3 and 10.4 in the writ petition. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep