1 2026:CGHC:18890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2007 of 2026 1 - Beena Singh W/o Devraj Singh Aged About 53 Years. 2 - Devraj Singh S/o Late Ramji Singh Aged About 60 Years. Both are R/o Village Chirhula, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) Current Address Maharana Pratap Ward Pandariya Road Infront Of Bijli Office Mungeli Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli , District- Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Mungeli , District- Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Sudhir Gowardhan S/o Late Balkrishna Gowardhan R/o Village Pendarakapa, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.). ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. SS Choubey, Dy. GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 2 24.04.2026 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: “10. RELIEF SOUGHT: 10.1 It is therefore prayed that, This Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to issue a writ/order/directions to quash/set-aside the order dated 22.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by Commissioner, Bilaspur & allow the stay application filed by the Petitioners u/s 52 of CGLRC & also quash the eviction notice dated 25.03.2026 (ANNEXURE P/2), in the interest of justice. 10.2. To direct the respondent no.5, not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners with respect to the impugned eviction notice dated 25.03.2026, till the ex-parte injunction & temporary injunction is decided by the Civil Court. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Second Appeal under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 (CGLRC, 1959) has been filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.3/Commissioner against the order passed by the respondent No.4/SDO, who has confirmed/affirmed the order of 3 respondent No.5/Tahsildar regarding eviction of the petitioner from the suit property under Section 250 of the CGLRC. Learned Counsel further submits that order of the Tahsildar itself is erroneous as an application under Section 131 of the CGLRC, 1959 has been filed by respondent No.5 for grant of easementary rights, however, the Tahsildar without appreciating this aspects has considered the application filed under Section 250 of the CGLRC and has passed the order of eviction, which is per se and illegal. Aggrieved by the said order of Tahsildar, petitioners have approached before respondent No.4/SDO by filing an First Appeal under Section 44(1) of the CGLRC, however, concerned SDO did not consider the aforesaid facts and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.3.2026. Learned counsel further submits that though the concerned SDO has consider the aspect before him under Section 131 of the CGLRC, however, the true aspect of Section 131 has not been considered. Then, the Second Appeal under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 (CGLRC, 1959) has been filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.3/Commissioner. The stay application under Section 52 of the CGLRC, 1959 has been filed by the petitioners, however, said application came to be rejected on erroneous grounds. The second appeal is still pending for consideration before the concerned Commissioner and as such some interim protection is required to be granted, otherwise, the purpose of filing 4 of the appeal is frustrated. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioners and supports the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the writ petition. 5. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, nature of reliefs, submission advanced by counsel for the respective parties, without considering on merits of the case, the impugned order is hereby set-aside and order of Status Quo is passed in favour of the petitioners directing the concerned respondent/Commissioner to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioners in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 6. Till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioners before the concerned Commissioner, the order of Status Quo will be remained intact. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.