Rupesh Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

CGHC010246382026

2026:CGHC:28146

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 3471 of 2026

¶8

1 - Rupesh Kumar Kaushik S/o- Shri Kantikumar Kaushik Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Ward No. 13, Gotiyapara, Pamgarh, Donga Kohraud (Dongakharod), Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh-495554.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

2 - Commissioner, Bilaspur- Division, Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶13

3 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh, District- JanjgirChampa (C.G.).

¶14

4 - Tahsildar, Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A.

¶17

2

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

08/07/2026

¶21

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶22

reliefs:-

¶23

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ of Certiorari, quashing notice dated 16.06.2026 issued by Respondent No.4/Tahsildar. Pamgarh, directing removal of the alleged encroachment and threatening eviction of the petitioner from the subject property;

¶24

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to strictly comply with and give effect to the stay order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the competent authority in Revenue Case

¶25

No.202309061100031/B-121/2022-23 and not to take any action contrary thereto during pendency of the appeal before the learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division;

¶26

(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining

¶27

the respondents, their officers, servants, agents and anybody acting on their behalf from dispossessing the petitioner from the subject property, demolishing the petitioner's residential house, interfering with his peaceful possession, or taking any coercive action pursuant to or in

¶28

3

¶29

furtherance of the impugned notice dated 16.06.2026;

¶30

(iv) Declare that any attempt to dispossess the petitioner during the subsistence of the stay order dated 12.12.2023 and pendency of the statutory appeal is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of Section 52(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and infringes the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India;

¶31

(v) Award costs of the present petition in favour of the petitioner; and

¶32

(vi) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, “the CGLRC”) has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.09.2023 and the same is presently pending consideration before the concerned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division. He further submits that, during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 52 of the CGLRC seeking grant of interim relief/stay, which is also pending consideration before the appellate authority. Learned counsel submits that the limited prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the concerned Commissioner to consider and decide the

¶34

4

¶35

petitioner's application for grant of stay under Section 52 of the CGLRC within a stipulated period. It is further contended that, in the absence of any interim protection, the petitioner is likely to be dispossessed from the subject land and, consequently, the very purpose of filing the appeal before the concerned Commissioner would be frustrated and the pending appeal may be rendered infructuous.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that he has no objection if an appropriate direction is issued to the concerned Commissioner to consider and decide the petitioner's application seeking interim relief/stay, strictly in accordance with law.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it appears that the appeal under Section 44(1) of the CGLRC was preferred by the petitioner as far back as in October, 2023 and is still pending consideration before the concerned Commissioner. It further appears that an application under Section 52 of the CGLRC seeking interim relief/stay has also been filed by the petitioner and the same has not yet been decided. According to the petitioner, the concerned Tahsildar has subsequently issued a notice dated 16.06.2026 for removal of encroachment and, therefore, there is an imminent apprehension of the petitioner being dispossessed from the subject land. In such circumstances, if the petitioner's application seeking interim relief is not considered and decided

¶38

5

¶39

expeditiously, the very purpose of preferring the statutory appeal may stand frustrated and the appeal itself may be rendered infructuous.

¶40

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the statutory appeal has been pending before the concerned Commissioner since the year 2023 and that the concerned Tahsildar has subsequently issued a notice dated 16.06.2026 for removal of encroachment, the concerned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, is directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the CGLRC seeking interim relief/stay, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶43

Raghu Jat

Rupesh Kumar Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupesh Kumar Kaushik 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

Mrs. Basanta Khare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sahab Rahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Fulsundari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Shri Hanuman Travels Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrawan Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh