HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA IVIISHRA. J Petitioner Versus 1. W.P.rClNo.5162of2009 Jai Kishan Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan Sharma, Aged about 76 yeare, R/o Rajapara, Kanker, District Kanker (North Bastar) (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary,, Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Collector, (Nazul) Kanker, (North Bastar) (CG) Tahsildar (Nazul), Kanker, (North Bastar) (CG) Naib Tahsildar (Nazul) Kanker (North Bastar) (CG) District Kanker District Kanker Kanker, District Shri PK Bhaduri, tearned oounsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, learned PL for the State on advance copy. Heard. By the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the shovif- cause notice of Annexure P/1 dated 3.9.2009 issued by the Tehsildar under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (in short "the Code"), whereby the petitioner has been cailed to shov»-cause as to why he should not be evicted from the encroached !and. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of Annexure P/1 is misconceived as the petitioner is in possession of the said land by virtue of a lease issued in his favour in the year 1971-72 vide Annexure P/2 under Section 181 ofthe Code. Earlier also in pursuance of notice of Annexure P/5 dated 23.12.1993, he had applied for permanent lease vide Annexure P/6 dated 20.1.1994 and his application for permanent tease is stlll pending. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. The peiitioner has been serviced with a show-cause notice of Annexure P/1 for the action contemplated under Section 248 of the Code. Lease of the land in question was for a temporary purpose for a limited period i.e. from 1.4.1971 to 31.3.1973 vide Annexure P/2. There is no dotiument filed by the petitioner to show t'hat the lease was subsequently extended or that he was granted permanent lease with respect to the said iand. In these circumstances, 1 am of the opinion that the proceedings under Section 248 ofthe Code initiated against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage, particularly when there a statutor/ remedy of appeal available to tfae petitioner under the Code against any order passed under Section 248 of the Accordingly. the petition being without substance_®^erebydismfe^d^Hhe admission stage itseif. Sd/- DhirendraMislira Judge