1 2025:CGHC:4220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1021 of 2019 Smt. Hemlata Bansal W/o Jagdish Bansal Aged About 55 Years Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Jagdish Banshal R/o District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. District Collector Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4. Indrajeet Vurman Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Officer Of Collector. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. For Intervener : Mr. Ayush Mahiswar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23/01/2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land bearing Khasra Nos. 1316/7 and 1316/34 ad-measuring 0.15 acre situated at Village 2 Sakti, P. H. No. 8, Tehsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir Champa (now District- Sakti) was purchased by petitioner through registered sale-deed in the year 1990 and name of petitioner was entered in the revenue records against those lands. He further submits that on 12.02.1992, a No- Objection Certificate was also issued in favor of petitioner by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti whereby permission was sought by petitioner for construction of house. He contends that a committee headed by Naib Teshildar, Sakti was constituted behind the back of petitioner and demarcation was conducted wherein it was found that petitioner has encroached over government land and order for demolition was passed. He further contends that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner and demarcation was conducted contrary to the provisions of Section 129 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. He prays to quash the order dated 02.03.2019 in the interest of justice. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that a complaint was made against petitioner before the District Collector Janjgir-Champa with regard to encroachment over government land. He further submits that a committee headed by Naib Tehsildar, Sakti was constituted which conducted demarcation and found allegation leveled against petitioner to be genuine. He contends that petitioner could not establish his right over the 0.03 acre of encroached land, therefore, order impugned was passed for demolition. 3) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of intervener submits that though his land is also affected but he has not been arrayed as respondent in the present petition. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 documents available on record. 5) The application moved by the intervener would show that he has made various allegations against petitioner with regard to encroachment etc. It appears that he moved application for intervention vindicating his personal grievances, therefore, the application for intervention is hereby rejected. 6) From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that a committee headed by Naib Tehsildar, Sakti was constituted behind the back of petitioner which conducted demarcation in absence of petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti passed the order impugned without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, therefore, order dated 02.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Revenue authorities are directed to conduct a fresh demarcation after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and thereafter, revenue authorities will be at liberty to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law. 7) The intervener will also be at liberty to participate in that proceeding, if so advised. 8) Accordingly, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya