Dismissed¶30

Jaishri Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2025WPC/328/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPC 328/2021; Jaishri Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & others; interim order 10.07.2020 by Additional Tahsildar under Section 250 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 staying construction; maintainability of writ petition; alternative remedy; appealability under Section 44 of the Code of 1959; Tahsildar's power to pass interim order considering nature and urgency; petition dismissed 05.08.2025 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petitioner left at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law (appeal under Section 44 of the Code of 1959). Certified copy of the impugned order to be returned after retaining xerox copy. ¶30

Jaishri Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the interim order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Bilaspur under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is maintainable, having regard to the availability of an appeal under Section 44 of the Code. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The order passed by the Additional Tahsildar is appealable according to the provisions of Section 44 of the Code of 1959.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

While exercising power under Section 250 of the Code of 1959, the Tahsildar may pass an order for removal of encroachment and, at the same time, an interim order can also be passed considering the nature and urgency involved in the case.

¶27

Key takeaways

The petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed; however, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WPC No. 328 of 2021, decided 05.08.2025 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.: Petition under writ jurisdiction assailing the interim order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Bilaspur in a proceeding initiated under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on an application moved by respondent No.5 on 30.06.2020, whereby construction being raised by the petitioner was stayed. Held: (i) the Tahsildar exercising power under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 may pass an order for removal of encroachment and an interim order can also be passed considering the nature and urgency involved; (ii) the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar is appealable under Section 44 of the Code of 1959; therefore the petition is not maintainable and is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the law.

NAFR

REKHA SINGH

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 328 of 2021

¶6

1 - Jaishri Sahu W/o. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o. Gitanjali City, Phase-2, Bahtarai Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, Revenue And Civil District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, Revenue And Civil DistrictBilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Tehsildar Bilaspur, Revenue And Civil District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Additional Tehsildar Bilaspur Revenue And Civil District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Smt. Usha Sahu W/o. Shri S.R. Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o. Nehru Nagar, Ameri Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Narayan Prasad Gabel Presently Posted As Tehsildar Bilaspur, (The Then Posted As Additional Tehsildar Bilaspur) Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. For respondent No.5 : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

05.08.2025

-2-

The petitioner has filed this petition against the interim order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Bilaspur dated 10.07.2020 in a proceeding initiated under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’).

¶22

Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Additional Tahsildar passed an interim order though power is not vested with it to pass any interim order. He would further submit that an application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 was moved by respondent No.5 on 30.06.2020 and the interim order was passed and construction which was being raised by the petitioner was stayed by the Additional Tahsildar vide order dated 10.07.2020. He would pray to quash the order dated 10.07.2020 being arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the order impugned is appealable one. They would also submit that the authority, who has power to decide the case finally may also pass an interim order. They would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶25

The Tahsildar while exercising power under Section 250 of the

¶26

¶27

Code of 1959 may pass order for removal of encroachment and at the same time, an interim order can also be passed considering the nature and urgency involved in the case.

¶28

In the present case, an application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 was moved by respondent No.5 and an interim order was passed by the Additional Tahsildar on 10.07.2020.

¶29

Further, the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar is appealable according to the provisions of Section 44 of the Code of 1959.

¶30

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed . However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law.

¶31

Certified copy of the impugned order be returned after retaining its xerox copy.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

Rekha

Jaishri Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaishri Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Kumar Banjare, Vs The State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Kumar Karsh Vs Sushant Kumar Singh

Smt. Meera Devi Agrawal (Died) Through Lrs- Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pappu Farishta Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Anju Baghel Vs Government of India