1 CGHC010108702022 2026:CGHC:29445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2310 of 2022  Chandikeshwar Singh S/o Late Ramnarayan Singh Aged About 43 Years Working On The Post Of Panchayat Secretary, Presently Posted At Village Panchayat - Bhanoura Janpad Panchayat - Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat - Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5. Jugal Kishor, Ex- Sarpanch Of Village Panchayat - Maheshpur, Janpad Panchayat - Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6. Permanand Yadav Ex- Panchayat Secretary Of Village Panchayat - Maheshpur, Janpad Panchayat - Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 7. Abhinath Singh S/o Dayashankar Singh Ex- Panchayat Secretary Of Village Panchayat - Maheshpur, Janpad Panchayat - Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.15 11:24:47 +0530 2 “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order of recovery of Rs 2,57,000/- issued by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner ANNEXURE P/1. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside of impugned order dated 19.1.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 in revenue revision no. 06/B-121/2015-16 ANNEXURE P/2. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Maheshpur was served with a recovery notice to the tune of Rs. 2,57,000/- issued by Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj pursuant to order dated 19.01.2022 passed in Revenue Revision Case No. 201604270100002 (06/B-121/2015-16). He would contend that the original order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) Ramanujganj and that proceeding was closed vide order dated 16.05.2011 on the ground that the petitioner had completed remaining construction work. He would submit that Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) again initiated a proceeding against the petitioner on same set of facts and allegations, which were already concluded vide order dated 16.05.2011 and said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, Balrampur by filing a revision petition, but same has been dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2022. He would submit that interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 04.04.2022, which is still operating. 3. It is contended by Mr. A.N. Pandey that petitioner had already completed the construction work, but relevant documents were not produced either before 3 the Collector or before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). It is contended by Mr. Pandey that the petitioner may be granted liberty to place all relevant documents before the respondents No. 2 & 3, and in turn, said authorities may be directed to take appropriate decision within stipulated time. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the revision preferred by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Collector, Balrampur and pursuant to said order recovery notice has been issued. They would submit that petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It appears that the petitioner failed to complete construction work, therefore, an enquiry was initiated and decision was taken to recover the amount. Order sheet dated 16.05.2011 would reveal that time was granted to complete construction work and proceedings initiated against the petitioner were closed. Subsequently, Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) without taking note of order-sheet dated 16.05.2011 initiated a recovery proceedings against the petitioner, which was challenged before the Collector and the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2022 and recovery notice to the tune of Rs. 2,57,000/- was issued on 19.01.2022. 7. Having considered the fact that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were closed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj vide order dated 16.05.2011 and this fact could not be brought into notice of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Collector. This petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to 4 submit all relevant documents before the Collector as well as the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj and said authorities are directed to take appropriate decision based on documents submitted by the petitioner. 8. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days and for period of 60 days the interim order granted on 04.04.2022 shall remain operative. The petitioner would be at liberty to revive his prayer, if new cause of action arises. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant