1 2025:CGHC:21826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2516 of 2025 1 - Rajeev Goyal S/o Ramkishan Goyal Aged About 68 Years Resident Of 17 Jalashay Marg, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sanjeev Goyal S/o Ramkishan Goyal Aged About 61 Years Resident Of 17 Jalashay Marg, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Zone Commissioner Zone No. 7, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Additional Tahsildar Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Maal Jamadar Tahsil Office, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing the impugned notice dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 against the petitioners for removal from their own lands. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are the recorded owners of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 256/7 and 258/13, admeasuring 0.0570 and 0.0840 hectares respectively, situated at Chirhuldih, P.H. No. 52, R.I.C., Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.). These lands were purchased by the petitioners through registered sale deeds dated 30.03.1994 and 15.05.1996 from the Raipur Cooperative Society Limited. Since the date of purchase, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the said lands, over which they have constructed a residential house, while a portion of the land remains open and has been developed into a garden. However, on 14.10.2024, respondent No. 4 issued a dispossession warrant against the petitioners, alleging unauthorized encroachment over Khasra No. 421 (part of the boundary of Karbala Pond), and directed them to vacate the encroached land by 16.10.2024. The warrant contains a reference to a prior removal order dated 27.09.2024, of which the petitioners were never informed, nor was it ever served upon them. On 14.09.2024, a spot inspection and demarcation were carried out by respondent No. 4, and a panchnama was prepared, but the petitioners were not provided a copy. Petitioner No. 2 managed to capture a photo of the panchnama via mobile, although the signature portion of the document is missing. At that time, respondent No. 4 orally informed the petitioners that no encroachment over Khasra No. 421 was found and that they were in possession of their own land. Despite this, the petitioners were later served with the impugned notice/order by 3 respondent No. 2, directing them to remove an alleged encroachment over 2346.53 sq.ft. (0.0218 hectare) of land forming part of Karbala Pond (Khasra No. 421), situated in Swami Atmanand Ward No. 38, Raipur (C.G.), within seven days, failing which action under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 would be initiated. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notices issued by respondent authorities, including the dispossession warrant dated 14.10.2024 and the removal order based on an alleged encroachment over Khasra No. 421 (part of the Karbala Pond), are arbitrary, devoid of merit, and deserve to be quashed. It is contended that the petitioners are the lawful owners of the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 256/7 and 258/13, situated at Chirhuldih, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.), which were purchased through registered sale deeds dated 30.03.1994 and 15.05.1996 from the Raipur Cooperative Society Limited. Since the date of purchase, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the said lands and have constructed a residential house, while the remaining portion has been developed as a garden. It is further submitted that the petitioners have never encroached upon Khasra No. 421, as alleged, and the impugned action initiated by respondent No. 2 is without any factual or legal basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that although the dispossession warrant refers to a removal order dated 27.09.2024, the petitioners were never served with such an order, nor were they made aware of any such proceedings. A spot inspection and demarcation were admittedly carried out on 14.09.2024 by respondent No. 4, and though a panchnama was prepared, the same was not provided to the 4 petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 was only able to photograph part of the document, which lacks signatures. Significantly, respondent No. 4 had orally informed the petitioners that no encroachment was found and that they were in possession of their own land. Despite this, the petitioners were later served with the impugned notice alleging encroachment over 2346.53 sq.ft. of Khasra No. 421. It is submitted that such action is clearly unjustified, contrary to law, and violative of the rights of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respective parties while opposing the submissions made by the petitioners, submits that the action taken by the authorities is strictly in accordance with law and within the framework of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. It is submitted that during routine inspection and demarcation of Government land, it was found that the petitioners had encroached upon a portion of Khasra No. 421, which forms part of the Karbala Pond, a public utility area. The encroached area measures 2346.53 sq.ft. (0.0218 hectare) and is not part of the lands owned by the petitioners as per the revenue records. While the petitioners are indeed recorded owners of Khasra Nos. 256/7 and 258/13, the encroachment identified falls beyond their titled property and into government land. The removal order dated 27.09.2024 was passed following due process, and the dispossession warrant dated 14.10.2024 was issued based on a formal inspection and demarcation. Though the petitioners allege non-service of the earlier order, the demarcation process was duly conducted and recorded through an official spot inspection panchnama, which remains part of the administrative record. Merely not furnishing a copy of the panchnama to the petitioners does not invalidate the proceedings, especially when the encroachment is 5 established by competent survey. The alleged oral statement by the official denying encroachment is not substantiated by any written document and cannot override the official record. The issuance of the impugned notice directing removal of encroachment within seven days was a necessary legal step to protect public land. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit, and the petitioners, instead of approaching this Hon’ble Court, ought to have availed the appropriate remedy by responding to the notice or seeking redress before the competent authority under the Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. Considering the nature of dispute, and without entering into the disputed questions of fact at this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners must first approach the respondent authorities by way of submitting a detailed reply to the impugned notice, along with all relevant documents including the registered sale deeds, boundary details, and any material evidence in support of their claim. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners shall submit their reply to the impugned notice dated 14.10.2024 before the competent authority/Municipal Corporation, along with a copy of this order and all supporting documents, on or before 16.05.2025. Upon receipt of the reply, the Municipal Corporation and the State authorities shall conduct a fresh demarcation of the land, clearly identifying the boundaries of the land of the petitioner and the Government land (Khasra No. 421), in the presence of the petitioners and after due notice to them. If it is found that there is any unauthorized encroachment by the petitioners over Khasra No. 421, no further order shall be required, and such encroachment shall be 6 removed forthwith by the authorities in accordance with law and if no encroachment is found, the authorities shall not proceed further under the notice dated 14.10.2024. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 8. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE