HIOH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAniSGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: Petttioner Bespondei'its HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ WritPetjtKmNo, 3383 of 200$ : Sukhlat S/o Kawal Sai, Aged about 40 years, R/o Wllage- Sarganwa, Tehsil - Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja - (C.G.) WERSUS 1. State of Chhatfegarti ThroughThe Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Dist:Raipur-(C.G.) 2. The Collector Sarguja ~ (C.G.) 3. TheTehsitdar, Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja - (C.G.) 4. Kn'shn Kumar Singh, S/o Late Gulab Singh, Aged about years, R/o Thana Vlllage-Sarganwa, Tehsil + Dist- Ambitepur. Pressnt: Shri Arun Shukla, teamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, teamed Dy. G.A. for ttie Strte. ORALQRDER tPassedon 6B'JuJy, 2006) In this writ petrtion, eviction notice issued by the Tehsildar, Ambikapur, the 3rd respondent herein under Section 248 of ChhatUsgarh Land Revenue Code (for short "the Code") has been assailed. ft is stated that the peb'tioner has been in unauttiorized occupation of the Government Land for the past 40-45 years. Then, in para 5.4, it is stated that the petitioner and the similariy circumstanced other encroachers have applied for grant of patta. It is contended that in view of the continued Act of unauthorized occupation for large number of -2- years and having regard to the fact that the encroachers have made applicatrons, the Tehsitelar ought not to have issued nottee under Secb'on 248 of the Code. The grounds urged against the impugned notice are not tenable. Though, in para 5.4, it is stated that fte petitioner and the similarly circumstanced other encroachers have applied for grant of patta, the assertion so made is as vague as it could be. It is not stated in the writ petitfon when ttie petitioner and others made applications for patta and to vi4iich authority such applications are made ete. Admittedly, subject land is a Government tand and it is ttie power of the Tehsihlar who is a Statutory Authority under the Code to safeguard the Govemment property by issuing evicfion notice. The lawful exercise undertaken by the Tehsildar could not be interdicted by entertaining (he writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. i Sd/- Chief Justice