1 2026:CGHC:24284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2801 of 2026 1 - Rohit Rajput S/o Kunjram Rajput Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Village Siltara, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Bihari Rajput S/o Shriram Rajput Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Siltara, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Mungeli District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Pathariya District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. CK Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. SS Choubey, GA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: 2 “10. RELIEF SOUGHT : (i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned stay order dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by way of this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the impugned stay order issued by respondent no.4/Tahsildar, whereby respondent no.4 has stayed the further construction of their house without any show-cause-notice and without any opportunity of hearing. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with above prayer/reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that impugned order has rightly been passed by the concerned Tahsildar, in which, interference is not required. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition including the impugned order. 5. Since, the matter is seized by respondent No.4/Tahsildar and while noticing the petitioners the Tahsildar has stayed the construction as raised by the petitioners, hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 3 6. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file the reply and appear before the concerned Tahsildar, where the matter is pending for consideration. Even otherwise also, since the order has been passed by the concerned Tahsildar, the petitioners are having alternate remedy to file an appeal before the concerned Authority in accordance with law. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.