-1- 2025:CGHC:871 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 423 of 2016 Ind Synergy Limited At Kotmar, Mahuwapalli, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory Mr. G. Surya Rao, S/o Late G. Butchayya Aged About 54 Years, Address- Gokulpuram Kachna Road, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1-The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Driector, A Government of Chhattisgarh Undertaking, 1st Floor Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road, No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur 492006, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Board of Revenue, Bilaspur At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Sub Divisional officer Revenue Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Divisional Forest officer, Raigarh Division, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Tahsildar, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. N. Baghmar, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1,3, 4,5,6 & 7 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 07.01.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the petitioner- Company. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to set aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, as a consequence, this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to set the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raigarh Division, Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh and the Tahsildar, Raigarh. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner-Company.” 2) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacturing of steel and power generation, having its plant at Village Kotmar, District Raigarh. The Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC) granted 80 acres of land to the petitioner for the operation of the power and steel plant. The two survey Nos. i.e. 338 and 348/1, which are in possession of the petitioner, are recorded in the revenue records as Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle, wherein, the petitioner company has erected its boundary wall and fencing. A proceeding under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, CGLRC) was initiated by the Tehsildar, and an order was passed against the petitioner. The SDO(R) dismissed the appeal vide an order dated 13.09.2010. Subsequently, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal and revision, respectively. -3- 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that survey Nos. 338 and 348/1 are government land and the petitioner has not encroached upon it. He argued that trees have been planted on the land and that these lands are adjacent to the land allotted to the petitioner. He further submitted that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner while issuing the order under Section 248 of the CGLRC. It is also contended that the appellate and revisional authorities failed to consider these aspects; thus, he would pray that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 12.01.2016 may be quashed. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer, opposed the submissions made by Mr. Baghmar and argued that the petitioner company has encroached over government land, specifically Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle, thus, a proceeding under Section 248 of the CGLRC was initiated, and an order was passed against the petitioner company. He submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities, and thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6) From a perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the petitioner has encroached over government land (Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle). It appears that a proposal has been sent to the State Government to grant a lease for the said land, but no decision has been taken. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Tehsildar, SDO(R), Commissioner (R), and the Board of Revenue that the petitioner has encroached over government land (Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle). Since -4- no decision has been taken by the State till date on the proposal sent for grant of lease, no case is made out in favor of the petitioner. 7) Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim