1 2026:CGHC:8340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 714 of 2026  Santosh Soni S/o Pannalal Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dantewada Tahsil Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector South Bastar Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada C.G. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada C.G. 4. Tahsildar Tahsil Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada C.G. 5. Municipal Council Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Bajpai, Advocate along with Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16.2.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of petitioner. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.16 16:51:13 +0530 2 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the notice dated 10.2.2026. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in facts and circumstances of the case. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eviction notice (Annexure P/1) has been issued by Tehsildar, Dantewada against petitioner on 10.2.2026 whereby petitioner has been granted time till 19.2.2026 to remove encroachment over government land pertaining to Khasra No. 257/1 ad-measuring 71.40 sq.mt. out of 4.855 hectares. He further submits that final order in proceeding under Section 248 of CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Code, 1959’] was passed by Tehsildar, Dantewada on 10.2.2026 ; said order was communicated to petitioner on 12.2.2026 and authority concerned ought to have afforded sufficient opportunity to petitioner to prefer appeal as the order impugned is appealable. He contends that petitioner may be permitted to prefer a duly constituted appeal along with application for grant of stay before the appellate authority, who in turn may be directed to decide application for stay before 19.2.2026. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. 4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 3 5) Admittedly, order passed under Section 248 of Code, 1959 is appealable before SDO(R), Dantewada according to the provisions of Section 44 of Code, 1959. The order was passed by Tehsildar, Dantewada on 10.2.2026 which was communicated to petitioner subsequently. Further, an eviction notice has been issued by the said authority on 10.2.2026 whereby petitioner has been directed to vacate the government land by 19.2.2026. 6) Limitation to prefer appeal against order passed by Tehsildar is 45 days, therefore the authority concerned should have at least granted 45 days’ time to petitioner before issuing eviction notice. Be that as it may, as the order impugned is appealable, this petition at this juncture is being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to prefer a duly constituted appeal along with application for grant of stay before SDO(R), Dantewada, who in turn is directed to decide the application for grant of stay on or before 19.2.2026. 7) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a