-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No.558 of 2024
Chandarmati Kurre D/o Hariram Aged About 48 Years Resident Of
Village Hardi, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.)
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund
(C.G.)
4. Tahsildar Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
5. Hirondi Bai W/o Janak Ram Resident Of Village Hardi, Tahsil Pithora,
District Mahasamund (C.G.)
6. Amar Singh Som Maljamadar, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund
(C.G.) ---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. D.R. Minj, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
31 .01.2024
Heard.
1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an
order has been passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Pithora, District
Mahasamund (C.G.) on 09.01.2024 according to the provisions of
Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code and a warrant of eviction
has been issued by respondent No.4/Tehsildar on the same day with
-2-
respect to the subject matter of the lis i.e. the dwelling house situated
at Village-Hardi, Tehsil-Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) bearing
Survey No.149 measuring 0.870 hectares where the petitioner is
residing.
2) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would
submit that there is an alternative remedy to prefer an appeal before
the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) against the order passed by
respondent No.4/Tehsildar according to the provisions of Section 44 of
the C.G. Land Revenue Code, therefore, the present petition is not
maintainable.
3) Taking into consideration the fact that there is an efficacious
alternative remedy to prefer an appeal before the concerned authority,
the present petition is not maintainable, however, as the warrant of
eviction has already been issued by respondent No.4/Tehsildar on
09.01.2024, the petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal along
with an application for the grant of stay before respondent No.3/Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue) within a period of 10 days and if the same
is preferred, the respondent No.3 shall decide the application for the
grant of stay within a further period of 15 days after affording the due
opportunity of hearing to the parties and for a period of 25 days, the
warrant of eviction shall not be given any effect.
4) With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha