Interim protection against eviction granted to allow petitioner to pursue statutory remedy before Board of Revenue.

The petitioner purchased private land via a registered sale deed.

Subsequently, the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) issued orders dated 11.12.2025 and 22.04.2026 directing that the said land be entered into the Wajib-ul-Arz (village administration record).

An appeal against these orders is currently pending before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue.

On 23.04.2026, an eviction (bedakhli) warrant was issued, which was served on the petitioner on 29.04.2026, requiring him to vacate the premises by 04.05.2026 under threat of forcible dispossession.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside these orders and the warrant, alleging a violation of natural justice and lack of opportunity to seek legal remedies.

1. Whether the court should interfere with the eviction warrant when an appeal regarding the title and the Wajib-ul-Arz entry is pending before a statutory forum.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection against coercive action to allow for the pursuit of alternative statutory remedies.

The court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies, signifying that when a competent forum (such as the Board of Revenue or Commissioner) is already seized of a matter, the High Court should exercise restraint under Article 226.

It further applied the principle of natural justice and the power of the Court to grant interim protection to prevent "irreparable prejudice" while a party approaches a lower forum for relief.

The Court observed that the core dispute involves the title and entitlement of the petitioner's predecessor, Devadas, which is still under adjudication by the appropriate revenue authorities.

Since the validity of the Wajib-ul-Arz entry—the foundation for the eviction—has not reached finality due to the pending appeal, the Court determined that the petitioner must pursue his remedies before the Board of Revenue rather than through a writ petition.

However, recognizing the imminent threat of dispossession and the short notice provided by the warrant, the Court reasoned that the petitioner required a "limited period" of protection to effectively approach the competent forum without being rendered homeless or suffering irreparable loss in the interim.

The Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the warrant dated 23.04.2026 for a limited period, conditioned upon the petitioner approaching the competent forum within the stipulated time (implicitly the 30 days requested).