1 2026:CGHC:15899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3365 of 2021 1 - Om Prakash Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o Balrampur P.S. And Tahsil Balrampur (But Wrongly Mention In The Order As Village Bhanoura) District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mamta Gupta W/o Om Prakash Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Balrampur P.S. And Tahsil Balrampur (But Wrongly Mention In The Order As Village Bhanoura) District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Balrampur District Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Sitaliya @ Sisiliya W/o Late Yenosen Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Bhanoura P.S. And Tahsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Gayatri Chauhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.08 10:27:33 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.04.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12.8.2021 issued by respondent no.4 ANNEXURE P/1. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court was please to restrain the respondent authorities to not initiate any demolition proceeding upon the subject land and house of the petitioners and protect the possession of the land of petitioners till the final decision of pending case before the respondent no.4. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to hold an enquiry against the respondent no.4 Tahsildar- Balrampur. 10.4 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 petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Balrampur, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, inasmuch as the same has been 3 issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without issuance of any prior notice. It is contended that the action of directing demolition of the petitioners’ residential house and dispossession from the subject land, that too during the pendency of proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Code, 1959’) is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and thus deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel further submits that a proceeding under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 is pending before the concerned Tahsildar; however, without disposing of the said proceeding and without adjudicating the rights of the parties, the impugned order dated 12.08.2021 has been passed directing demolition of the petitioners’ house on the allegation of illegal possession. It is submitted that till date the said proceedings have not culminated, and in absence of any final order, such coercive action could not have been taken. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land bearing Khasra No. 138/3, admeasuring 0.03 hectare, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14.12.2009, and their names have been duly mutated in the revenue records. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners have raised construction and are residing on the said land along with their family. Learned counsel submits that on earlier occasions also, upon applications filed by 4 respondent No.5, the competent authority had granted interim stay orders, however, the same were vacated after considering the reply of the petitioners and the reports of the revenue authorities, thereby clearly establishing the lawful possession of the petitioners over the subject land. 5. Learned counsel further submits that despite repeated demarcation reports submitted by the revenue authorities, which consistently affirm that the petitioners have not encroached upon the land of respondent No.5, the respondent No.4 has passed the impugned order in utter disregard of such material on record. It is contended that the respondent No.5 has been repeatedly initiating proceedings on the same cause of action, and the Tahsildar has entertained such applications mechanically, which reflects mala fide exercise of power and non-application of mind. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be quashed and appropriate relief be granted in favour of the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while opposing the petition, submits that in compliance of the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by this Court, a demarcation report has been placed on record along with relevant documents including panchnama, map and revenue records (Annexure D/1). It is submitted that the demarcation of the land in question was carried out on 27.09.2021 in presence of the adjoining land holders, namely Om Prakash Gupta, Anand, Fransis Kerketta, Nirmala 5 Kujur and Aruja Kujur, after due notice to all concerned parties. It is further submitted that though notice was duly served, one of the parties refused to sign the panchnama and another did not participate in the proceedings. He further submits that as per the demarcation report, certain discrepancies have been noticed in the revenue records on account of overlapping of Khasra Nos. 138 of village Balrampur with Khasra Nos. 326 and 331 of village Bhanaura, arising out of settlement and re-settlement operations conducted in different years. It is also pointed out that issues pertaining to the original khasra numbers and their subsequent re- numbering, including the land recorded in the name of Gorakhnath Pandey, are already pending consideration before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balrampur. 7. However, learned counsel for the State is not in a position to submit as to whether the proceedings initiated under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 have culminated or not, and whether any final order has been passed therein prior to issuance of the impugned order directing demolition and dispossession. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the dispute pertains to the subject land in respect of which proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 are stated to be pending consideration before the competent authority and have not yet attained finality. 6 9. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the statute. Accordingly, the petitioners are relegated to avail the remedy as available in law before the concerned Tahsildar, where the proceedings are already stated to be pending. 10. It is further observed that the competent authority shall decide the said proceedings expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and by taking into consideration the entire material available on record, including the demarcation report and relevant revenue entries within 60 days from today. 11. In the meanwhile, in order to balance the equities and to ensure that the pending proceedings are not rendered infructuous, it is directed that till final adjudication of the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners, including demolition of the house or dispossession from the subject land. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh