1 CGHC010285012026 2026:CGHC:31908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3861 of 2026 Johanlal S/o Shri Lakhanlal Puraina, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Gidhwa, Tahsil Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Office Of The Collectorate, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Bemetara, Distt Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar, Office Of The Tahsildar Dadhi District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Chintaram S/o Baisakhu, Resident Of Village Gidhwa, Tahsil Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) 6 - Pramod S/o Chandrahas Resident Of Village Gidhwa, Tahsil Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) 7 - Vyasnarayan S/o Ganpat, Resident Of Village Gidhwa, Tahsil Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) 8 - Jitendra S/o Jawahar, Resident Of Village Gidhwa, Tahsil Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.27 18:25:40 +0530 2 9 - Lalit Kumar S/o Shankar Resident Of Village Gidhwa, Tahsil Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) 10 - Likendra S/o Ajuram, Resident Of Village Gidhwa, Tahsil Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) 11 - Saleswar S/o Dashrath, Resident Of Village Gidhwa, Tahsil Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. AG S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 i.e. Tahsildar to dismiss the complaint made by the respondent No.5 to 11. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 10/07/2026 passed by the respondent No.4 i.e. Tahsildar and directed to the respondent No.4 not to dispossessed the petitioner and constructed the shop upon the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 i.e. Tahsildar not to disturb to the 3 petitioner for running the welding shop. 10.5 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongfully held as an encroacher in proceedings initiated under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short “the Code”). He submits that the petitioner has not encroached upon any part of the land in question and as such, the order dated 9.7.2026 is not in accordance with law. He submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, removal notices dated 10.7.2026 and 22.7.2026 respectively have been issued against the petitioner, directing him to remove his encroachment within 7 days from 22.7.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that since the impugned order has been passed by the concerned Tehsildar, an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the Code. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents annexed with the petition, including the order dated 9.7.2026, it appears that the concerned Tehsildar has passed the order under Section 250 of the Code after due consideration and after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Against the said order, a statutory alternative remedy of appeal lies before the Appellate Authority i.e. SDO (R), 4 which the petitioner has not availed and directly filed his petition. In view of the above, prima facie, the petition is not maintainable. 5. Had it been a case where no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner or where the order was passed by an authority having no jurisdiction, this petition would certainly have been entertained. However, those exceptional circumstances are lacking in the present case. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned SDO(R) by filing an appropriate appeal under Section 44(1) of the Code within 10 days from today, along with an application for stay under Section 52 of the Code. Upon such filing, the concerned SDO(R) shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application in accordance with law. 7. It is further directed that till the decision on the said application under Section 52 of the Code by the Appellate Authority, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notices. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay