N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (Ci No.2 Hindustan troteum Corporation Limited, Rpur, through Shn‘ Nand Lal Janewoo, Sr. Regional Manager, H.P.C.L., L.P.G., Regional Offe, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur 975/2008 Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, hrough the Couector, Raipur C.G. 2 Nayab Tahsiidar, H D r Shriram Agarwai, S/oLate Nathulal Agrawal, Raipur (C.G.) 4 anmohan Agrawai, Mandir asaud, istrict Raipu (C.G.} 408, Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, M S/o Late Nathuial Agrawai, 6-108, Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 5 Sunii Agrawai SJo Late Nathuiai Agrawai, (3-108, Sector 5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 6 Satish Chand Sharma, Nayab Tahsiidar, Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE ' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M Aggearance : Mr. P.S. Koshy and Mr. N. Naha Roy, Counsel for the Mr. State/respondents A.S. Kachhwaha, 1 & 2. Dy. Advocate Generai for the petitioner. Mr. B.P. Sharma and M. Vivek Chopra, Caunsel for -m‘x Mr. Vivek Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.6. respondents 3 to 5. PETiTlONER Pe af ic RESPONDENTS t C , r W / WRIT PETITION (C) No.2975l2008 ORAL ORDER (20.04.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard finaliy with the consent of the parties. The petitioner —- Corporation is operating L.P.G. Bottling Plant on a land situated at Mandir Hasaud, Raipur. According to the petitioner, the possession of the said land was handed over to the petitioner after its acquisition by the State way back in the year 1986. The Naib Tehsildar, Mandir Hasaud, at the instance of respondents 3 to 5 registered a case under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and passed the order against the petitioner to hand over the possession of the disputed land to respondents 3 to 5 on 21.04.2008. An appeal was tiled under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the Sub Divisional Officer against the said order passed by the Naib Tehsildar. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 08.05.2008 (AnnexureP/Q) allowed the interim application of stay of the petitioner and the effect and operation of the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar was stayed. Mr. Koshy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after grant of stay in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.6 forcibly demolished a part of the boundary wall of the petitioner’s plant on 13.05.2008. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in the Court of XII Civil Judge, Class—ll, Raipur, but the suit was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the bar contained in Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. He submits that thereafter, this writ petition was filed, in which, an order of interim stay was granted on 11 06.2008 in favour of the petitioner and it was directed that the status quo, as it obtained on the said date with respect to the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land, shall be l l l 3 WRIT PETITION (Cl Nq.2975/2008 maintained by the parties and the respondents, particularly respondents 2 and 6 shaH not make any interference with the possession of the petitioner tili the next date of hearing. Reply on behalf of the State has been filed. it is stated in the reply of the State that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mandir Hasaud, Raipur. Mr. Kachhwaha, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State submits that since the order of stay is already operating in the said appeal in favour of the petitioner; this petition may be disposed of and the petitioner may be directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal itself. Reply on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 has also been filed. in view of’the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, as stated at bar, l deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer to dispose of the pending appeal in accordance with shyna .: ‘ fa. e ”:JV law. Accordingly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Sub Divisionai Officer shallexpedite the hearing of the appeal pending before it against the order passed by Naib Tehsildar at the earliest. With aforesaid observations/directions, this petition stands finally disposed of. No cost. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge