Advocates:
['C R SAHU', '', 'A D KULDEEP', 'C K SAHU', 'A G']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 207 of 2017

1. Gaindlal Dhritlahre S/o Samaliya Dhritlahre, Aged About 50

Years R/o Village Chhatauna, Police Station & Tahsil Mandir

Hassaud, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And

Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,

Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Additional Tahsildar, Mandir Hassaud, District Raipur,

(Chhattisgarh)

4. The Gram Panchayat, Chhatauna, Through The Secretary,

Janpad Panchayat, Mandir Hassaud, District Raipur,

(Chhattisgarh)

5. Jamadar Maal, Tahsil Office, Arang, District Raipur

(Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondent

For Petitioner

Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent/State Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board

15/03/2017

1.

Petitioner would assail the distress warrant issued by the

respondent No.3 whereby he has been directed to remove his

possession from the encroached Government land.

2.

It appears, the respondent No.3 has passed an order on

6-12-2016 under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the CGLRC') directing the

petitioner to remove encroachment and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.

Pursuant to which the petitioner has paid the fine amount on

12-12-2016 (Annexure – P/4), but has not vacated the

premises.

3.

Challenge to the distress warrant, without challenging the

original order, is not maintainable, because the distress warrant

is issued in execution of original order passed under Section

248 of the CGLRC and it has no separate existence. As long

as the order under Section 248 is operative, the authority has

to issue a distress warrant, which cannot be said to be illegal or

without jurisdiction.

4.

In absence of any challenge to the original order dated

6-12-2016, this petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise,

that order has been passed by the Additional Tahsildar; against

the same the petitioner is required to approach the appellate

authority; and a writ petition directly before this Court is not

maintainable.

5.

As a sequel, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

Judge

Prashant Kuamr Mishra

Gowri