1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2082 of 2025 1. Md. Ashique S/o Late Alimuddin Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Ramanujganj, Tahsil And District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 2. Md. Kadam Rasul S/o Late Alimuddin Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Ramanujganj, Tahsil And District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 3. Gulam Rasul S/o Late Alimuddin Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Ramanujganj, Tahsil And District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 4. Ibrar S/o Late Alimuddin Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Ramanujganj, Tahsil And District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 5. Jannat Hussain S/o Late Alimuddin Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ramanujganj, Tahsil And District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4. Tahsildar Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5. The Patwari Halka No. 28, Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08. 05.2025 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.05.08 16:14:44 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned notices dated 15.04.2025/16.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 4, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, has initiated a proceeding under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code, 1959”) against the petitioners, and show-cause notices have been issued to the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners have not encroached over the Government Land and no opportunity of hearing was provided before issuance of such notices. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the authority concerned has issued show-cause notices under the provisions of Section 248 of the Code, 1959, and petitioners have been provided opportunity to submit all relevant documents and reply to show- cause notices. He would further submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It appears that Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, after registration of case under the provisions of Section 248 of the Code, 1959, has issued show-cause notices to the petitioners. The petitioners have been provided opportunity to file a reply and submit relevant documents. The petitioners, instead of filing a reply to show-cause notices, have approached this Court; therefore, in 3 my opinion, the instant petition is not maintainable, accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to file a reply to show-cause notices issued by the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, under the provisions of Section 248 of the Code of 1959. 6. The concerned Tahsildar is directed to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before taking decision and the authority is also directed to pass order strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 248 of the Code, 1959. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant