1 2025:CGHC:32503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3597 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Rajwade S/o Shri Teekam Rajwade Aged About 38 Years Occupation- Service Posted As Constable In 4th Batalian, Mana Camp R/o Village- Banarsi, Post- Mana Basti, P.S.- Mana Camp, Tahsil- Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1-State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Additional Tahsildar Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate along with Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- a. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 11.04.2025(Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 3. b. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by restraining the respondent’s authority in demolishing the petitioner’s house which was constructed after due permission of the gram Panchayat Banarsi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question is not a govt. land and the same is the ancestral land of the petitioner which is clear from the revenue record of the year 1941-42 to 2013-14 therefore, ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.07.15 17:29:47 +0530 2 the proceedings under the Section 248 of CGLRC is not maintainable as the power under Section 248 is vested upon the revenue authority to protect the govt. land, hence the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar is itself not sustainable, that aspect has not been considered by the appellate authority at the time of deciding the appeal and passed the order impugned which is illegal per se. He submits that the learned Additional Tahsildar, in passing the order dated 04.09.2024 under Section 248 of the CGLRC, failed to consider the documents filed by the Petitioner, including the NOC from the Gram Panchayat, the Vansshawali form, and other relevant documents establishing the ownership of the land in question. This omission is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to have his case considered in its entirely. Furthermore, the respondent failed to record evidence to establish that Khasra No. 175 is govt. land as the land in question is Shamilat Charagah left by ancestors of the petitioner. 3. He further submits that the action of the Respondents, particularly the imposition of a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the order of dispossession, is arbitrary and unreasonable. The land in question is ancestral property, which has been in possession of the petitioner’s family for several decades. Despite the availability of the NOC from the Gram Panchayat, no substantial evidence has been presented by the respondent to show that the petitioner is encroaching on govt. land or any land is legally subject to Shamilat Charagah. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner. He may file a revision before the concerned Commissioner against the order of the SDO, Revenue, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh/respondent no. 3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On bare perusal of the record available, it is clear that the land in question that is Bhumi Gram- Banrasi, Patwari Halka No. 79 Rajasv Nirakchak Mandal(Revenue Inspector (Circle)), Raipur, Tahsil and 3 District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Khasra No. 175, Rakba 0.475 Hectare is in the name of the fore father of the petitioner. However, there is also a word used with “Joint Charagan”. Hence, on the basis of this, the concerned Tahsildar/respondent no. 4 has passed an order under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed the order in appeal under Section 44 read with section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code against the petitioner. 7. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the land in question was owned by the fore fathers of the present petitioner. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner may file a revision before the concerned Commissioner within 15 days from today and it is also directed that during the pendency of the revision, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. However, petitioner is also directed not to do anymore construction over the disputed land from today. 9. With the aforesaid direction the present petition is disposed of. Certified copies as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza