1 CGHC010263612026 2026:CGHC:30343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3729 of 2026 1 - Anil Kumar Markandey S/o Late Dasharu Markandey, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Tandwa P.H. No. 11, Tahsil Tilda, Nevra, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Land Revenue, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tilda, Nevra, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Tahsildar, Tilda, Nevra, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Dharmendra Yadav S/o Hemant Yadav R/o Village And Post Tandwa, Tahsil Tilda, Nevra, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order On Board 17.07.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “1. grant an immediate order of stay on the execution of the eviction order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Tahsildar, Tilda- Nevra and the appellate order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the (Revenue), in Appeal Case No. SDO Tilda-Nevra 202604115000008/A-70/Year 2025-26; 2. Direct the Respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the Petitioner's possession over the land in dispute and not to interfere with or obstruct the same for a period of 30 days; 3. Grant the Petitioner a period of 30 days to avail his statutory remedy of Second Appeal/Revision before the competent higher forum, during which period the eviction warrant shall not be executed; 4. Pass such other order(s) or grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; 5. Award the costs of this petition in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tilda-Neora, District Raipur. However, since an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing a second appeal before the concerned Collector is available, the 3 petitioner seeks liberty to avail the said remedy. It is further submitted that, as the impugned order was passed on 23.06.2026, the petitioner may be granted a brief breathing period to enable him to file the second appeal and, till then, the respondents may be restrained from taking any coercive steps against him. 3. Learned State Counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tilda-Neora, District Raipur, in accordance with law and under the provisions of the applicable statute. However, the State has no objection to the petitioner being relegated to the appropriate appellate forum in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing a second appeal before the concerned Collector is available to the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a second appeal before the concerned Collector within a period of 30 days from today, if so advised and permissible in law. 6. It is directed that till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, so as to enable him to avail the aforesaid statutory remedy. In the event the petitioner files the second appeal within 4 the aforesaid period along with an application for interim relief, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. 8. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha