Direct challenge to the underlying appellate order is necessary to contest consequential demolition notices.

The petitioner, seeking to protect a small residential house he claims to have possessed for 30–40 years, challenged a demolition notice dated 06.04.2026 issued by Respondent No. 4.

The notice directed the removal of alleged encroachments on Government land (Khasra No. 64/1/kha) in Village Misda.

The petitioner alleged the action was motivated by a neighbor (Respondent No. 7) and lacked due process.

The State countered that the notice was a consequential action following an order by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), which was subsequently affirmed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, on 07.04.2026.

1. Whether the demolition notice dated 06.04.2026 can be set aside while the underlying appellate order affirming the encroachment remains unchallenged.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief against eviction in a writ proceeding where a statutory remedy against the primary adjudication of title/possession has not been exhausted.

The Court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies and the doctrine of finality of administrative orders.

It held that a consequential notice cannot be independently impugned when the substantive order upon which it is based (the Commissioner’s appellate order) remains valid and unchallenged.

The court emphasized that the validity of an appellate revenue order cannot be examined in a collateral writ petition without a direct challenge to said order.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s grievance primarily stemmed from a finding of illegal occupation/encroachment by revenue authorities. However, the State established that the Sub-Divisional Officer's findings were already upheld by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, via an order dated 07.04.2026.

The Court reasoned that since the impugned notice was merely a ministerial act to implement the Commissioner’s decision, the notice itself could not be found illegal as long as the Commissioner’s order stood.

The Court determined that it would be procedurally improper to adjudicate the merits of the petitioner's possession under Article 226 when the petitioner had not yet assailed the definitive appellate order before a competent forum.

It held that the correctness of the Commissioner's findings cannot be examined in the absence of a direct challenge.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to assail the appellate order dated 07.04.2026 before the competent forum in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded.