1 2026:CGHC:7614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 576 of 2026 • Hemant Sahu S/o Jagdish Sahu Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village- Khudiyadih Tahsil Fingeshwar District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Mantralaya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2. Collector Gariyaband District- Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Figeshwar District- Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4. Tahsildar Tahsil Fingeshwar District- Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.02 .2026 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned stay dated 05.02.2025 has issued by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ order or directions to the respondents may not interference for further construction over the incomplete construction of the petitioner's house, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.11 17:08:05 +0530 2 and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a sum of Rs. 57,233.70/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for construction of house under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. He would submit that the concerned Tahsildar has stayed further construction of house on complaint made by villagers. He would submit that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction and after due verification, the authorities concerned sanctioned the fund. He would pray to set-aside the order. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Dadariya would contend that matter is pending before the Tahsildar against the petitioner regarding illegal construction. He would submit that in said proceeding the Tahsildar passed order of stay. He would submit that the order was passed way back in the year 2025, whereas, this petition has been preferred in the year 2026. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by respective Advocates, the petitioner is granted liberty to file all relevant documents before the concerned Tahsildar within a period of 15 days from today, and in turn, the Tahsildar is directed to enquire into the matter and take appropriate decision after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, preferably within a period of 60 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant