1 / 3 2025:CGHC:2267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4147 of 2024 1 - Sajan Singh Sen S/o Of Likhan Sen Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Kirgi (B), Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 – Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 4 – Tahsildar, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 5 – Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kirgi (B), Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 2 / 3 14/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the notice dated 05/08/2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Gram Panchayat, Kirgi (B), Janpad Panchayat, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon whereby the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kirgi by exercising power under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Adhiniyam”), has directed the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question bearing Khasra No.336/1. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before issuance of the notice and direction to remove the alleged encroachment, the procedure prescribed under Section 56(4) of the Adhiniyam has not been complied with and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kirgi submits that prior to issuance of the notice impugned, another notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 2021 and the petitioner has also filed reply to the said notice but the said proceeding cannot be concluded. He further submits that after issuance of the impugned notice, again some other notices dated 13/08/2024 and 04/09/2024 (Annexure R5/5) were issued to the petitioner but still the petitioner has not removed the alleged encroachment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the notices issued to the petitioner. 3 / 3 5. From perusal of the notice issued to the petitioner, it appears that though a proceeding under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam has been drawn whereby it has been directed to the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment within a period of seven days however, prior to the issuance of impugned notice of removal of encroachment the procedure prescribed under Section 56(4) of the Adhiniyam has not been followed. The relevant part is prescribed as under :- 56(4). The Gram Panchayat shall not pass any order in the exercise of powers under this Section until the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 6. As no opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned notice dated 05/08/2024, the said notice of removal is contrary to the provision prescribed under Section 56(4) and is hereby quashed. 7. The Gram Panchayat is at liberty to take fresh action in accordance with the provision prescribed under Section 56 by issuance of notice to the petitioner and proper opportunity of hearing and the petitioner is also directed to file reply to the said notice, if so desired. The Gram Panchayat shall pass appropriate order in accordance with the provision prescribed under Section 56 within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of notice. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar