1 CGHC010244572026 2026:CGHC:31030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3435 of 2026 Inderpal Tiwari S/o Shiv Narayan Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Kumhari, Tehsil Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi C.G. (Name Of The Petitioner Wrongly Mentioned As Inderpal Singh In The Impugned Order) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Commissioner Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The Collector Gourela Pendra Marwahi C.G. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi C.G. 5 - Tahsildar Marwahi District Gourela Pendra Marwahi C.G. 6 - Hemwant Porte W/o Late Bhanwar Singh Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Badrauli, Tehsil Marwahi District Gourela Pendra Marwahi C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.22 10:10:47 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Revenue Appeal Case No.48/A-70/2022-2023 affirming the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Marwahi and the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Tahsildar, Marwahi under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "the CGLRC"), whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the subject land. Challenge has also been made to the consequential order dated 25.05.2026 and the execution order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the Tahsildar for removal of the alleged encroachment. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Court of learned Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)/ Respondent No. 2 in Revenue Appeal Case No. 48/A- 70/2022-2023 and restrain the respondent authorities to dispossessed the petitioner from the subject land. 3 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the order dated 25.05.2026 (ANNEXURE P/2) and order dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Learned Tahsildar/Respondent No. 5 in pursuance of the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 and restrain the respondent authorities to dispossessed the petitioner from the subject land. 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 appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed solely on the basis of a demarcation report dated 11.02.2017, which had allegedly been prepared much prior to the institution of the proceedings under Section 250 of the CGLRC initiated by respondent No.6 in the year 2021. It is contended that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the infirmities in the demarcation report and have mechanically directed eviction of the petitioner. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2025, the Tahsildar has issued the order dated 25.05.2026 directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the subject land and thereafter, by order dated 18.06.2026, constituted a team for removal of the alleged encroachment. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.03.2025 as well as the consequential proceedings initiated for dispossession. 4 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the original order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 250 of the CGLRC is dated 29.04.2022, which stood affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 28.11.2022 and thereafter by the Additional Commissioner on 20.03.2025. The petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay and has failed to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation for such delay in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of revision under Section 50 of the CGLRC against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, which has not been availed. It is argued that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Additional Commissioner holding that the petitioner is an encroacher over the land belonging to respondent No.6, and in the absence of exhaustion of the statutory remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and submits that the proceedings under Section 250 of the CGLRC were initiated on her application seeking restoration of possession of the land recorded in her name. It is submitted that after due consideration of the material on record, the competent revenue authorities have concurrently held that the petitioner had encroached upon the 5 land of respondent No.6 and accordingly directed restoration of possession. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 250 of the CGLRC was affirmed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) by order dated 28.11.2022 and thereafter by the learned Additional Commissioner by order dated 20.03.2025. Thus, there are concurrent findings recorded by all the three revenue authorities against the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged the said orders before the revisional authority by availing the statutory remedy provided under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. No exceptional circumstance has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Apart from the availability of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy, this Court also finds that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. Though the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.03.2025 along with the consequential execution proceedings, no satisfactory explanation has been offered in the writ petition explaining the delay in approaching this Court. In the 6 absence of any plausible explanation for such delay, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of revision under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 against the order dated 20.03.2025 before the competent revisional authority, if so advised, in accordance with law. It is observed that if such revision is preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh