1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1867 of 2020 1 - Bhupendra Sahu S/o Shri Bishat Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tarachand S/o Shri Lalaram Aged About 39 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 3 - Lochan S/o Shri Ramasra Patel Aged About 60 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 4 - Thakur Ram S/o Shri Santram Patel Aged About 35 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5 - Balaram S/o Shri Ramu Patel Aged About 60 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 6 - Bhekumar S/o Shri Ghansuram Sahu Aged About 30 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 7 - Deenu S/o Shri Samaru Sahu Aged About 55 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 8 - Tirith Ram S/o Shri Premlal Sahu Aged About 65 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 9 - (Died) Mohan, Through Legal Heirs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated. 28-02- 2024. 9.1 - 9 A. Bhuneshwari Bai Sahu W/o Late Mohan Sahu Aged About 52 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 9.2 - 9b. Domshwari Sahu D/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 24 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.12 15:39:54 +0530 2 10 - Sewak S/o Shri Premlal Dewangan Aged About 67 Years Residence Of Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Gariyaband District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Rajim District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sursabandha, Block- Fingeshwar Tahsil- Rajim District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 6 - The President, Gram Sabha Gram Panchayat Sursabandha, Block- Fingeshwar Tahsil- Rajim District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 7 - (Deleted) Pratap Sahu (President) Gram Sabha As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-01-2026 8 - Smt. Bhojbai Tandiya, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sursabandha, Block- Fingeshwar Tahsil- Rajim District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 539 of 2026 1 - Puranik Sahu S/o Shri Baliram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 2 - Basant S/o Kaliram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3 - Santosh S/o Manohar Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - Fatte Lal Sahu S/o Lalaram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - Goverdhan S/o Kartik Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 6 - Ramji S/o Ludgu Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 7 - Lokpal S/o Punau Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3 8 - Prabhuram S/o Hirde Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 9 - Pokhraj S/o Johat Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 10 - Sundarlal S/o Dwarika Lohar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 11 - Punitram S/o Raghunandan Patel Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 12 - Jagdev Yadav S/o Arjun Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gariyaband District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Rajim District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sursabandha, Block - Fingeshwar Tahsil - Rajim District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 6 - The President Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat Sursabandha, Block - Fingeshwar Tahsil - Rajim District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2630 of 2020 1 - Parmanand Sahu S/o Shri Nihali Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim Block Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramdular Sahu S/o Shri Shivprasad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim Block Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bahur Rawat S/o Shri Sukdev Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim Block Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mohan S/o Shri Baisakhu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim Block Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 5 - Dushyant S/o Shri Netram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim Block Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Heeralal S/o Shri Netram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim Block Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Yadram S/o Shri Radhelal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim Block Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Asan S/o Shri Ludgu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim Block Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sarpanch Village Sursabandha, Block Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6 - The President Gram Sursabandha, Block Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Pratap Sahu (President) (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 22-01- 2026 8 - Smt. Bhojbai Tandiya Sarpanch, Gram Sursabandha, Block Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 9 - Deceased (Anil Tandiya) Through Legal Representative- 9.1 - (A) Sunita Tandiya W/o Late Anil Tandiya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sursabandha Tahsil Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 9.2 - (B) Rajkumar Tandiya S/o Late Anil Tandiya, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sursabandha Tahsil Rajim Block- Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 10 - Smt. Seema Sharma W/o Prakash Sharma Aged About 49 Years Presently 5 Posted As Janpad Panchayat Member Fingeshwar District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 11 - Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Nandkumar Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Sursabandha Tahsil Ramjim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 12 - Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Ramkishan Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sursabandha Tahsil Ramjim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2177 of 2020 1 - Lalji Verma S/o Shri Ajin Verma Aged About 60 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Khorbahra Sahu S/o Shri Birjhuram Sahu Aged About 67 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Narad Ram Sahu S/o Shri Sukalu Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Prabhu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Hriday Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Santosh Ram Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Guni Ram Sahu S/o Shri Tiharu Sahu Aged About 50 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Anand Ram S/o Shri Suklal Aged About 57 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Surendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bisauha Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 9 - Devram Verma S/o Shri Suklal Verma Aged About 46 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 10 - Basant Ram Verma (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-07-2025. 10.1 - Rambati Verma W/o Late Basant Verma Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Sursabandha, Tahsil- Rajim, Block- Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband C.G. 11 - Smt. Saraswati Bai Sahu W/o Shri Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - 6 Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 12 - Madan Ram Sahu S/o Shri Fektu Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 13 - Teeju Ram Sahu S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 31 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 14 - Suresh Ram Sahu S/o Shri Gulal Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 15 - Mannu Ram Nirmalkar S/o Shri Bhujbal Nirmalkar Aged About 45 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 16 - Umesh Nirmalkar S/o Shri Bhujbal Nirmalkar Aged About 35 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 17 - Shatruhan Sahu S/o Shri Ludgu Sahu Aged About 51 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 18 - Dhanaru Ram Sahu S/o Shri Derhu Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 19 - Dinesh Ram Sahu S/o Shri Chain Singh Sahu Aged About 41 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 20 - Leela Ram Dhruw S/o Shri Bisauha Aged About 41 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 21 - Chandraha Sahu S/o Shri Shuklu Aged About 41 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 22 - Smt. Kiranmala W/o Shri Ramkumar Verma Aged About 42 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 23 - Parmanand S/o Nihali Sahu Aged About 52 Years Residence Of Village - Sursabandha, Tahsil - Rajim, Block - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, 7 Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar, Rajim, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sursabandha, Block - Fingeshwar, Tahsil - Rajim, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6 - The President, Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat Sursabandha, Block - Fingeshwar, Tahsil - Rajim, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Pratap Sahu (Deleting) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 22-01-2026 8 - Smt. Bhojbai Tandiya, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sursabandha, Block - Fingeshwar, Tahsil - Rajim, District - Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate For Private Respondents : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Intervenor : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.03 .2026 1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking following relief :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2020 and 24.07.2020 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) issued by the respondent no. 3 and 4. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to not take any action against the petitioners with regard to the 8 occupied land bearing khasra no. 360, 356, 34, 37, 38/1, 39, 348, 447/1 with the land bearing khasra no. 800 and 797 situated at village - Sursabandha Tahsil Rajim District Gariyaband (C.G.) without following due process of law as well as without giving show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 5(Sarpanch) and 6(President) to pass an appropriate resolution with regard to the plantation of the tree in the land which is unoccupied or un-irrigated in the village – Sursabandha. 10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which deem fits by this Hon'ble Court. 10.6 Cost of the petition also given to him. 10.7 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to release the amount which has been deposited in the bank account of gram Panchayat in favour of petitioners which is in respect of cutting and selling of crops by the petitioners.” 2. Mr. Sunil Tripathi would fairly submit that the petitioners are encroachers over part of Government land bearing survey Nos. 34, 37, 38/1, 39, 348, 356, 360, 447/1, 797 and 800 situated at village - Sursabandha Tahsil Rajim District Gariyaband. It is also contended that some of the petitioners are in possession of Bhumiswami right lands. He would further submit that Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajim vide order dated 30.07.2020 directed the petitioners to remove encroachment. The order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) pursuant to a report submitted by the Tahsildar, Rajim dated 24.07.2020. Mr. Tripathi would submit that no 9 enquiry was conducted according to the provisions of Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959(for short “Code, 1959”). It is contended that initially orders were issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Sursabandha against the petitioners. He also submits that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to pass any order according to the provisions of Section 248 of Code, 1959. He would submit that the report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 24.07.2020 and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.07.2020 may be quashed. Mr. Tripathi would submit that pursuant to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the revenue authorities harvested the crop and sold the paddy crop. It is contended that the amount is lying with the Gram Panchayat. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to release the funds deposited with the concerned Gram Panchayat. 3. Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate appearing for private respondents submits that an enquiry was conducted and order was passed by the Collector, District Gariyaband on 12.11.2020. It is submitted by Mr. Thakur that proceedings were initiated by the Collector pursuant to a memo issued by the Tahsildar dated 10.06.2020. He submits that Government land bearing survey Nos. 38/1, 37, 39, and 348 admeasuring 17.38 hectares was allotted to Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation for establishment of new Food Park. It is further contended that the petitioners were in possession of part of the above-stated survey numbers. It is argued that a proposal was sent by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) according to the Revenue Book Circular, consequently, said order was passed. Mr. Thakur would submit that earlier there was encroachment over 10 the Government land and that was removed by the revenue authorities in accordance with the law, but after a few years, the petitioners again encroached over Government land, therefore, the impugned orders were passed. It is also contended that a Civil Suit No. 11A/2020 was filed by the petitioners and other encroachers seeking therein relief of permanent injunction and damages and application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was rejected vide order dated 12.02.2021. He urged that the relief sought for in Civil Suit and this batch of petitions are almost similar. He would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that some of the petitioners approached the Collector for grant of lease and their applications were rejected vide order dated 22.01.2025 and those orders have not been assailed by the petitioners in these batch of petitions. 5. Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate appearing for the Intervenor submits that the petitioners have encroached over Government land, and therefore, the revenue authorities have passed just and proper order for removal of encroachment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Perusal of the documents placed on record would reveal that the petitioners have encroached over Government land. A memo was sent by the Tahsildar to the Sub-Divisional Officer for removal of encroachment. The Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue), Rajim passed an order on 30.07.2020 therein directing the petitioners to remove encroachment. 11 Perusal of the document would show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. In a similar fashion, memo was sent to the Collector by Sub-Divisional Officer and based on such report, the Collector passed order dated 12.11.2020. 8. A Civil Suit was filed by the petitioners and other encroachers over the Government land, before the competent Civil Court seeking therein the relief of permanent injunction and damages. It appears that an application for temporary injunction was also moved and said application was rejected vide order dated 12.02.2021. It is an admitted fact that the Civil Suit is still pending consideration. It is also quite vivid that the petitioners have not sought relief of declaration of title in the said pending Civil Suit. 9. Perusal of order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.07.2020 and order passed by the Collector dated 12.11.2020 would show that the authorities concerned exercised power under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, such power could have been exercised by Tahsildar alone strictly in accordance with the provisions made in the Code of 1959. It is also apparent that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. 10. Section 248 of the Code of 1959 provides complete procedure for removal of encroachment from Government land, Section 248 is reproduced herein- below :- “248. Penalty for unauthorisedly taking possession of land. – (1) Any person who unauthorisedly takes or remains in possession of any unoccupied land, abadi, service land or any other which has been set apart for any special purpose under Section 237 or upon any land which is the property of Government, or any authority, 12 body corporate, or institution constituted or established under any State enactment, may be summarily ejected by order of the Tahsildar and any crop which may be standing on the land and any building or other work which he may have constructed thereon, if not removed by him within such time as the Tahsildar may fix shall be liable to forfeiture. Any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Tahsildar may direct and the cost of removal of any crop, building or other work and of all works necessary, to restore the land to its original condition shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue from him. Such person shall also be liable at the discretion of the Tahsildar to pay the rent of the land for the period of unauthorised occupation at twice the rate admissible for such land in locality and to a fine which may extend to [twenty five thousand rupees] [Substituted 'five thousand rupees' by C.G. Act No. 14 of 2011, dated 3.5.2011.] and to a further fine which may extend to [two hundred rupees] [Substituted 'twenty rupees' by C.G. Act No. 14 of 2011, dated 3.5.2011.] for every day on which such unauthorised occupation or possession continues after the date of first ejectment. The Tahsildar may apply the whole or any part of the fine to compensate persons, who may in his opinion have suffered loss or injury from the encroachment : Provided that the Tahsildar shall not exercise the powers conferred by this sub-section in regard to encroachment made by buildings or works constructed- (i)in the Mahakoshal region- (a)in areas other than the merged States before the first day of September, 1917; (b)in the merged States, before the third day of April, 1950; (ii)in the Madhya Bharat region, before the fifteenth day of August, 1950; (iii)in the Vindhya Pradesh region, before the first day of April, 1955; (iv)in the Bhopal region, before the eighth day of November, 1933; and (v)in the Sironj region, before the first day of July, 1958. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section "Merged States" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Chhattisgarh Merged States Laws (State) Act, 1950 (XII of 1950). (1-A) On a resolution duly passed by the Gram 13 Panchayat in respect of any unauthorised possession, the Tahsildar shall start and complete the proceedings under this section within thirty days from the date of receipt of the information of such resolution and shall communicate the action taken by him to the Gram Panchayat. (2)It shall not be competent to the Tahsildar to impose a fine of amount exceeding [ten thousand rupees] [Substituted 'one thousand five hundred rupees' by C.G. Act No. 14 of 2011, dated 3.5.2011.] but if in any case he considers that circumstances of the case warrant imposition of a higher fine, he may refer the case to the Sub- Divisional Officer who shall, then, after giving the party concerned an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders in respect of line as he may deem fit. (2-A) If any person continues in unauthorised occupation or possession of land for more than seven days after the date of order of ejectment under sub-section (1), then without prejudice to the fine that may be imposed thereunder the Sub- Divisional Officer shall cause him to be apprehended and shall send him with a warrant to be confined in a civil prison for a period of fifteen days in case of first ejectment and three months in case of second or subsequent ejectment : Provided that no action under this sub-section shall be taken- (i)unless a notice is issued calling upon such person to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on a day to be specified in the notice and to show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison; (ii) 1[***]: Provided further that the Sub-Divisional Officer may order the released of such person from detention before the expiry of the period mentioned in the warrant if he is satisfied that the unauthorised possession has been vacated : Provided also that no woman shall be arrested or detained under this sub-section. (2-B) The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sub-section (2-A). 14 2[(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the State Government or any officer, authorized by the State Government, entmay do settlement of encroachments prior to the date fixed by the State Government time-to-time and the State Government may make rules in this relation.” 11. Bare reading of above-quoted provision would make it clear that the legislature has conferred power upon Tahsildar to take action against encroachers. Thus, it is manifest on the face of record that the Sub- Divisional Officer and Collector are not competent authority to initiate a proceeding under Section 248 of the Code of 1959, and thus, they exceeded their jurisdiction. Further, the authorities concerned also failed to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 12. The paddy crop of the petitioners was harvested and sold by the revenue authorities. The amount is lying with the Gram Panchayat, Sursabandha. In the year 2020, the petitioners were in possession of the part of the Government land and pursuant to order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20.07.2020 their possession was removed and paddy crop was harvested. As held in preceding para that the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as Collector exceeded their jurisdiction while exercising power under Section 248 of Code of 1959, therefore, the seizure of paddy crop of the petitioners and its sell are also without jurisdiction. The petitioners are held entitled to receive paddy sell price from the concerned Gram Panchayat. Thus, it is directed that the concerned Gram Panchayat shall release sell amount of paddy to the concerned petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. It is also informed that applications moved by the petitioners for settlement/allotment of Government land have been rejected by the concerned Collector. In these petitions, those orders have not been 15 assailed and no relief has been sought, therefore, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law. 14. The orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.07.2020, report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 24.07.2020 and further order passed by the Collector dated 12.11.2020(though it is not challenged) are hereby quashed. The concerned Tahsildar shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 248 of Code of 1959 against the petitioners. The authority concerned shall follow the procedure provided under Section 248 of the Code of 1959 and shall provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioners. 15. With the aforesaid observation(s), direction(s), these petitions are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant