Disposed¶30

Santosh Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Feb 2026WPC/714/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court writ petition (WPC) 714 of 2026; eviction notice dated 10.2.2026 by Tehsildar Dantewada; encroachment over government land; Khasra No. 257/1, 71.40 sq.mt.; final order under Section 248 CG Land Revenue Code, 1959; appealability under Section 44 of Code, 1959 before SDO(R) Dantewada; 45-day limitation for appeal; liberty to file appeal with stay application; direction to decide stay on or before 19.2.2026; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer a duly constituted appeal along with an application for grant of stay before the SDO(R), Dantewada; the SDO(R), Dantewada directed to decide the application for grant of stay on or before 19.2.2026. ¶30

Santosh Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 10.2.2026 (eviction notice issued by the Tehsildar, Dantewada) ought to be quashed/set aside. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

An order passed under Section 248 of the Code, 1959 is appealable before the SDO(R), Dantewada according to the provisions of Section 44 of the Code, 1959.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned order is appealable, the petition is disposed of at this juncture, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer a duly constituted appeal along with an application for grant of stay before the SDO(R), Dantewada.

¶29

Key takeaways

The limitation to prefer an appeal against an order passed by the Tehsildar is 45 days; the authority concerned should therefore have granted at least 45 days' time to the petitioner before issuing the eviction notice.obiter¶29
The SDO(R), Dantewada is directed to decide the application for grant of stay on or before 19.2.2026.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur — WPC No. 714 of 2026, Santosh Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (decided 16.2.2026, Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey). The petitioner, facing an eviction notice dated 10.2.2026 issued by the Tehsildar, Dantewada requiring removal of encroachment over government land (Khasra No. 257/1, 71.40 sq.mt. out of 4.855 hectares) by 19.2.2026 — following a final order under Section 248 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 passed on 10.2.2026 and communicated on 12.2.2026 — sought quashing of the notice. The Court held that an order under Section 248 is appealable before the SDO(R), Dantewada under Section 44 of the Code, 1959, and observed that the 45-day limitation for appeal meant the authority ought to have allowed at least 45 days before issuing the eviction notice. As the order was appealable, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a duly constituted appeal with a stay application before the SDO(R), who was directed to decide the stay application on or before 19.2.2026.

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.16 16:51:13 +0530

2026:CGHC:8340

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 714 of 2026

¶7

Santosh Soni S/o Pannalal Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dantewada Tahsil Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2. Collector South Bastar Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada C.G.

¶12

3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada C.G.

¶13

4. Tahsildar Tahsil Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada C.G.

¶14

5. Municipal Council Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada C.G.

¶15

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner :	Mr. Shailendra Bajpai, Advocate along with Mr. VijayShankar Mishra, Advocate
For State :	Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Judgment On Board

¶18

16.2.2026

¶19

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):-

¶20

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of petitioner.

¶21

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the notice dated 10.2.2026.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eviction notice (Annexure P/1) has been issued by Tehsildar, Dantewada against petitioner on 10.2.2026 whereby petitioner has been granted time till 19.2.2026 to remove encroachment over government land pertaining to Khasra No. 257/1 ad-measuring 71.40 sq.mt. out of 4.855 hectares. He further submits that final order in proceeding under Section 248 of CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Code, 1959’] was passed by Tehsildar, Dantewada on 10.2.2026 ; said order was communicated to petitioner on 12.2.2026 and authority concerned ought to have afforded sufficient opportunity to petitioner to prefer appeal as the order impugned is appealable. He contends that petitioner may be permitted to prefer a duly constituted appeal along with application for grant of stay before the appellate authority, who in turn may be directed to decide application for stay before 19.2.2026.

¶25

3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose.

¶26

4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

¶28

5) Admittedly, order passed under Section 248 of Code, 1959 is appealable before SDO(R), Dantewada according to the provisions of Section 44 of Code, 1959. The order was passed by Tehsildar, Dantewada on 10.2.2026 which was communicated to petitioner subsequently. Further, an eviction notice has been issued by the said authority on 10.2.2026 whereby petitioner has been directed to vacate the government land by 19.2.2026.

¶29

6) Limitation to prefer appeal against order passed by Tehsildar is 45 days, therefore the authority concerned should have at least granted 45 days’ time to petitioner before issuing eviction notice. Be that as it may, as the order impugned is appealable, this petition at this juncture is being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to prefer a duly constituted appeal along with application for grant of stay before SDO(R), Dantewada, who in turn is directed to decide the application for grant of stay on or before 19.2.2026.

¶30

7) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition stands disposed of .

¶31

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶32

A j i n k y a

Santosh Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Soni 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

Sanjeev Kumar Sonthaliya Vs Sanjay Agrawal

Yashvant Sawariya (Died and Deleted Through Lrs) Vs Poonamchand Agrawal

P. R. Naik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Heera Bai

Smt. Anju Tiwari Vs Mohd. Akram

Praveen Tiwari Vs Smt. Sunita Anant