1 2025:CGHC:6790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 13 of 2020 • Raju Khan S/o Nizamuddin Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Ahemed Nagar (Parradand), Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan , Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Board Of Revenue Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Commissioner Surguja Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Fulerswari Bai W/o Late Shankar Ram Korwa By Caste Korwa, Resident Of Village - Navanagar, Korwapara, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ State For Respondent No. 5 : : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Laywer Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/02/2025 Heard on admission. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order dated 10.01.2019 (ANNEXURE P- 1) AND 06.12.2019 (ANNEXURE P-2) issued by the respondent No. 2 & 4. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which deem fits by this Hon’ble Court. 10.4 Cost of the petition also given to him.” 2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No. 5 made a complaint before the State Authorities to the effect that there are 09 shops over her own land situated at Kharsiya Road, Bharatmata Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja. It was alleged that the petitioner and other 08 persons encroached over the shops and they were running their businesses. It was also stated that respondent No. 5 belongs to the Scheduled Tribes community and was being harassed. The cognizance was taken on the complaint by the District Collector on 10.01.2019 and an order was passed against the encroachers to vacate the premises and the S.D.O.(R) Ambikapur was directed to execute the order. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner against the order dated 10.01.2019 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.11. 2019. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2019. 3. Mr. Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is an oral rent agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 5. He would further submit that the petitioner is still paying the rent to respondent No. 5 every month. He would contend that the petitioner has been running his business for the last 20 years and he has no other source of income for his livelihood. He would further contend that the revenue authorities have committed an error of 3 law in entertaining the complaint and passing orders against the petitioner. He would pray to allow the petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Prateek Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer and Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned Advocate appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner is an encroacher. They would contend that 08 persons have already vacated the shop premises of respondent No. 5. It is also contended that there is no rent agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 5. They would further contend that the petitioner using the muscle power encroached the shop and is still running his business. It is also stated that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the Collector, Commissioner and Board of Revenue against the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The petitioner has taken a stand that there is an oral rent agreement between the parties, but in this regard, he could not adduce any evidence. A complaint was made by respondent No. 5 who is the owner of the subject property to the effect that 09 shops were encroached on by various persons including the petitioner. The petitioner could not produce a document with regard to the title or his right over the said shop. If there was any rent agreement between the parties, the petitioner should have placed that document on record. It appears that forcibly the petitioner encroached on the shop of respondent No. 5 and has not vacated till date. The Collector Ambikapur, the Commissioner Surguja Division and the Board of Revenue have recorded concurrent findings against the petitioner. 4 7. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Revenue Courts, the right of respondent No.5 over the subject property and the manner in which the petitioner has encroached the shops of respondent No. 5, no case is made out for interference. 8. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 9. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. 10. The State Authorities are directed to hand over the possession of the shop to respondent No. 5 forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti