1 2026:CGHC:26519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3245 of 2026 Salik Ram Sahu S/o Narayan Prasad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Birra, Tehsil- Bamnihdih, P.S.- Birra, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - S.D.O. (Revenue) Champa District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Sub-Tehsil Bamnihdih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Revenue Inspector Village- Birra Sub- Tehsil Bamnihdih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Patwari Village- Birra Sub-Tehsil Bamnihdih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7 - S.H.O. Police Station- Birra District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 8 - Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari S/o Lt. Kalika Prasad Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Birra, Tehsil- Bamnihdih, Police Station- Birra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. AG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: “RELIEF SOUGHT: 10.1 That, the respondents be directed by a writ to produce all record with respect to the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner for perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order Memo/order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.4 (Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bamnihdih, District: Janjgir- Champa C.G.) to Respondent No.7 (S.H.O., Police station- Birra, District: Janjgir-Champa C.G.) 10.3 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly quash the entire Proceeding initiated by Respondent No.4 (Tehsildar, Tehsil:Bamnihdih, District:Janjgir- Champa C.G.) on the Application u/s 250 readwith Section 32 of Chhattisgarh Land & Revenue code, filed by Respondent No.8,as the demarcation was not carried out as per the procedure prescribed in C.G.Land and Revenue Code as well as Chhattisgarh Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali and the Rules & procedure prescribed for it. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble court may further pleased to direct Respondent No.3 to consider and decide 3 the Application u/s 52 C.G. Land and Revenue Code (Annexure P/9) which is pending before Respondent No.3 (SDO. Revenue, Champa, District-Janjgir-Champa, C.G.) within any stipulated time period. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by final order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e.,Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (CGLRC) along with an application under Section 52 of CGLRC seeking grant of stay, which is still pending consideration. During pendency of the said appeal and application, the Tahsildar has passed an order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Learned Counsel contended that once the appeal had been preferred and it is pending before the appellate authority, the Tahsildar has no authority to pass such an order in respect of the subject matter of the appeal. The Tahsildar ought to have awaited the decision of the appellate authority on the appeal as well as the stay application. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the above reliefs/prayers. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the Tahsildar appears to have passed the order dated 15.05.2026 only with a 4 view to maintain law and order and preventing any untoward incident between the parties. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record. 5. Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the record/petition, this Court finds that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal under Section 44(2) of the CGLRC against the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Tahsildar, alongwith an application under Section 52 of CGLRC, which is pending consideration before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Once the appellate jurisdiction had been invoked, the Tahsildar could not have assumed jurisdiction to pass the subsequent order dated 15.05.2026 in relation to the same subject matter. Respondent No. 8 was also aware of the pendency of the appeal, having entered appearance before the appellate authority. As such, order dated 15.05.2026 cannot be sustained in law, having been passed without jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed/set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent No. 8 before passing this order. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 are directed to pursue their respective remedies before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), where the appeal is presently pending. 5 7. Since the order passed by the Tahsildar (Annexure P-1) contemplates removal of the alleged encroachment, the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall accord due priority to the consideration of application filed under Section 52 of CGLRC for grant of stay, failing which the very purpose of filing the statutory appeal may be rendered nugatory. 8. Accordingly, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application under Section 52 of the CGLRC within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.