01Facts
The petitioners challenged the authorities’ proposed eviction from Plot No. 25, Sheet No. 16 D, Kawardha, pursuant to a removal notice dated 22 October 2026.
¶ 1Petitioner No. 1 claimed the land had been leased to her in 2019–20.
¶ 1The petitioners had appealed the order dated 22 October 2026 under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Collector (Nazul), Kabirdham, and had filed an application under Section 52(2) seeking interim relief; both remained pending.
¶ 1–3They sought protection from coercive action while those proceedings were considered.
¶ 1–3The State did not oppose the request and confirmed that the appeal was pending.
¶ 402Issues
i.Whether the petitioners should be protected from coercive action under the removal notice while their appeal and application for interim relief remained pending before the appellate authority.
¶ 3, 6ii.Whether the appellate authority should be directed to decide the pending appeal and interim-relief application expeditiously.
¶ 603Law Applied
The petitioners invoked Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, to appeal the order, and Section 52(2) to seek interim relief.
¶ 1, 3The Court applied the principle that, where an appeal and an application for interim relief are pending, the appellate authority should be afforded an opportunity to consider them; coercive action in the meantime may render the interim-relief application ineffective.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 3
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 Section 44Section 52Section 52
04Reasoning
As the petitioners had already filed an appeal and an application for interim relief, both pending before the Collector (Nazul), the Court considered it appropriate to leave the merits for that authority to decide.
¶ 6It found that eviction before the interim-relief application was considered could render that application infructuous, and therefore granted time-limited protection while directing the Collector to decide both matters promptly.
¶ 6–705Holding
The Court directed the respondent authorities not to take coercive steps against the petitioners pursuant to the removal notice dated 22 October 2026 for 45 days from 5 November 2026.
¶ 7It directed the Collector (Nazul), Kabirdham, to decide the appeal and the Section 52(2) application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within that period.
¶ 7The protection would cease after 45 days, without prejudice to the petitioners’ liberty to seek further protection from the competent authority in accordance with law.
¶ 8The writ petition was disposed of.
¶ 9Original Court PDF
TIJAN BAI SATYAVANSHIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
