1 / 4 2025:CGHC:22606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2620 of 2025 1 - Chandan Baghel S/o Shri Ram Shankar Baghel Aged About 55 Years R/o Ambikapur Road, Chandanpur Mohalla, Katghora, Police Station Katghora, Tehsil Podi-Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Office Of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tehsildar Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Katghora, Municipal Office Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For State : Mr. Mayank Khandelwal, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 09/06/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned notice dated 30/04/2025, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the encroachment as soon as possible. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.06.12 11:05:55 +0530 2 / 4 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the demolition of the shop in the land in question for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned notice dated 30.04.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to follow the procedure as per law before demolishing the shop in the land in question. 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant such other relief(s) in favour of the petitioner, as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that no notice was directly served to the petitioner by Respondent No.3 and no proceedings have been initiated by the Respondent authorities under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 to remove enroachment and the shop in question was constructed in the year 1998-99. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance in the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy {(2010) 8 SCC 383} and would submit that the instant petition may be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the impugned notice do not call for any interference by this Court. 3 / 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In the matter of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan And Others1, it has been held by the Supreme Court that encroachment on pavement/public street or any government land ought not to be countenanced and the same has to be removed expeditiously in the interest of public and the administration. It is held therein that in the case of encroachment of recent origin, there is no need of following the principles of natural justice, however, in cases where the encroachment is not of recent origin, notice of 10 days or two weeks for removal of encroachment would be sufficient compliance. 7. Similarly, in the matter of Jagpal Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Ors.2, the Supreme Court has held in paras-13 & 22:- “13. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not 1 (1997) 11 SCC 121 2 AIR 2011 SC 1123 4 / 4 valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years. 22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land. 8. Considering the above settled legal principles and in view of the fact that the petitioner has not placed before this Court any document proving his title or entitlement to remain in occupation of the shop. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu