Facts
The petitioner, owner of land at Khasra No. 705/8 and 705/19 in Village Sakti, alleged that Respondent No. 3 encroached upon a 14 x 14 sq. ft. portion by constructing a tin shed.
Source reference: para. 2The Tahsildar (Respondent No. 2) passed an order on 21.05.2020 in Revenue Case No. 75/B-121/2018-2019 directing the removal of the encroachment and restoration of possession.
Source reference: para. 1-2Despite notices, the order remained unexecuted, prompting the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus for enforcement.
Source reference: para. 2-3The State informed the Court that Respondent No. 3 had since filed an appeal against the eviction order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).
Source reference: para. 5Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce a revenue order while a statutory appeal against said order is pending before a competent appellate authority.
Source reference: para. 7-8Law Applied
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, specifically Section 250-A regarding the restoration of possession and the removal of encroachment.
Source reference: para. 3The principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies and judicial restraint during the pendency of a statutory appeal before a competent authority, such as the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).
Source reference: para. 5, 8Reasoning
The Court observed that while the Tahsildar had indeed issued an order for removal of encroachment, that order was currently the subject matter of a pending appeal before the SDO.
Source reference: para. 7The Court determined that it was inappropriate to adjudicate the merits of the case under Article 226 when a statutory appellate mechanism was already engaged.
Source reference: para. 7The High Court reasoned that the petitioner’s concerns regarding limitation and the merits of the encroachment should be addressed directly to the appellate authority to avoid parallel proceedings and to ensure the statutory process is completed.
Source reference: para. 8-9Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits.
The Court directed the appellate authority to decide such applications strictly in accordance with the law after hearing all parties and to endeavor to resolve the appeal expeditiously, preferably within 60 days of receiving the certified order.
Source reference: para. 9Original Court PDF
SMT. HEMLATA BANSALvsTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in