1 CGHC010268782026 2026:CGHC:29886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3681 of 2026 1 - Vedprakash Sahu S/o Ramlal Sahu Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Jevartala, Tahsil Devrimari Bangla, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Durg Division, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Upper Collector, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Doundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Tahsildar Bhari Bangla Devri, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 6 - Bhuneshwar S/o Chowaram R/o Jevartala, Tahsil Devrimari Bangla, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondents. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further construction of house being carried out by the respondent no. 6 over the government land, till the final decision of revision pending before the respondent No. 3. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the complainant in the matter and has raised an objection regarding the construction being carried out by respondent No. 6 over government land. It is submitted that the said objection has not yet been duly considered by the respondent authorities, despite the fact that proceedings have already been initiated by the concerned authorities in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities concerned have not passed any final orders on the relief sought by the petitioner/complainant, and therefore, the interim order passed in the matter is not in accordance with law. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has challenged the interim order, while the main revision petition is presently pending 3 consideration before the learned Additional Collector, Balod (C.G.). It is submitted that the said revision petition shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a reasonable period. It is further submitted that the State has no objection to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, considering the fact that the main revision petition is pending consideration before the learned Additional Collector, Balod (C.G.), this Court refrains from entering into the merits of the interim order. Accordingly, the concerned revisional authority, i.e., the learned Additional Collector, Balod (C.G.), is directed to consider and decide the revision petition in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju