1 / 4 2025:CGHC:32336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3639 of 2025 Anand Kediya S/o Late Radheshyam Kediya Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Near Hanuman Mandir, Mahantpara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Diester Management, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. 4 - Tahsildar, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. 5 - Gaurav Kesharwani S/o Sushil Kesharwani Aged About 37 Years R/o Bhoghapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/07/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.07.11 17:26:29 +0530 2 / 4 1. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 07/07/2025 passed by Respondent No.4 in Revenue Case No.202506062700058/A-68/2024-25 and Dispossession warrant dated 07/07/2025 whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the encroachment over the government land and dispossession warrant within 07 days was also issued. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner were the owner and possession holder of the land which was situated at Bhoghapara, P.H. No.08, R.I. Circle Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. bearing Khasra No.625/12 and 626/3, total area 0.02 acres and 625/11 & 626/2, total area 0.04 acres and adjacent to their lands government land bearing Khasra No.629 was situated. He would next contend that the petitioner was constructing house in his land, but on account of some political vendetta, the Respondent No.5 made a complaint that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land and on the complaint of the respondent No.5, the Respondent No.4 has registered the revenue case and directed the Revenue Inspector and concerned Patwari to submit the report. He would next contend that the Revenue Inspector and concerned Patwari has submitted the cryptic report and on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector and concerned Patwari, the Respondent No.4 without considering anything has passed the impugned order, which is bad in law. 3 / 4 3. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for Respondent No.5 have contended that the Tehsildar has already given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passed the order and the said order is appealable under Section 44 (1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. On perusal of the record it is crystal clear that on 12/06/2025 in the encroachment register the concerned Patwari has recorded on 03/06/2025 that the petitioner has encroached on land bearing Khasra No.629 admeasuring 70x30 sq. Kadi (dM+h) and the cross- examination of the Patwari is very important wherein he has stated that “Lor% dgrk gS fd esjs }kjk iwoZ esa Hkh okn Hkwfe ds laca/k esa cstk&dCtk iath esa mDr izdj.k dks fnukad 03-06-2025 dks ntZ fd;k x;k gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd fnukad 03-06-2025 ds iwoZ ls vukosnd dk fuekZ.k dh igyh eathy iw.kZ gks pqdh FkhA Lor% dFku fd;k fd nwljh eafty fuekZ.k/khu FkhA ;g dguk lgha gS fd cstk&dCtk iath dk fjiksVZ ntZ djus ds ckn U;k;ky; dks is’k ugha fd;k x;k FkkA Lor% dgk fd f’kdk;r izkIr gksus ds i'pkr~ cstk&dCtk dk fjiksVZ U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k A ;g dguk lgha gS fd f’kojhukjk;.k ls [kjkSn tkus okyh lM+d dh Hkwfe [kljk uacj 629 esa fLFkr gSA ;g dguk Hkh lgha gS fd [kljk uacj 629 dk uD’kk ,d iV+Vh dh rjg gSA Lor% dFku fd;k fd [kljk uacj 629 mRrjh Hkkx esa pkSM+kbZ 120 dM+h gS A ;g dguk lgha gS fd [kljk uacj 625 ds lkeus lM+d dh pkSM+kbZ 80 dM+h gS” 6. From perusal of the above, it is crystal that the Patwari has mentioned the petitioner as an encroacher of the government land bearing Khasra No.629 on 03/06/2025 i.e. prior to 12/06/2025. There is no demarcation report in presence of the petitioner and also 4 / 4 he has admitted that he has never filed the demarcation report dated 03/06/2025 before the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar has passed the order on the basis of the demarcation Panchnama dated 12/06/2025 and passed the order under Section 248 of the C.G.L.R.C., 1959. Since the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 44 (1) of the C.G.L.R.C. Therefore, the petitioner is granted liberty to to file an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code, 1959 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and on such appeal being filed, the concerned SDO (Revenue) shall decide the same within a period of 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal keeping in mind the observations made by this Court and also on its own merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till the appeal is decided, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy today. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu