1 2025:CGHC:34397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3769 of 2025 1 - Ram Bai Banjare W/o Shiv Dayal Banjare Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Karda Post- Marda, Distt- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Distt- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Tahsildar Lavan Distt- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Itwara Bai Sarpanch Of Village Karda Post Marda Distt- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Ajit Sahu Up Sarpanch Of Village Karda Post Marda Distt- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Sajan Verma Secretary Village Karda Post- Marda Distt- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (i)That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 and 5 (ii)Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.21 16:05:38 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 30.06.2025, issued by respondent No. 3 and 5 whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the land situated at village Karda, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, where her house is situated and they are in possession of the said land since 35-40 years back. On 01.08.2012, her husband died then they are living peacefully in the house and the respondent No. 3 & 5 having no jurisdiction to issue notice to her. Therefore, she made complaint before the learned Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara on 06.06.2025 and also to the Superintended of Police, which is pending consideration and he prays for a direction to decide the same. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondents to consider the pending complaint, she is having no objection to the limited prayer and if the complaint of the petitioner is pending, it will be considered in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Section 56 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 deals with hindrances, obstructions, and encroachments upon public streets and open sites within a Gram Panchayat area. 6. Therefore, initially the Gram Panchayat has power to issue notice under Section 56 of PRA against hindrances, obstructions, and encroachments upon public streets and open sites. Moreover, from perusal of Section 56, the Gram Panchayat has no right to remove 3 unauthorized construction. The removal of unauthorized construction vested into the Tehsildar under Section 248 of CG Land Revenue Code. 7. In view of above discussion, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at this stage directing the respondent No. 2 Tehsildar to decide the representation/application/complaint dated 06.06.2025 of the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 8. Till the application/complaint/representation dated 06.06.2025, is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti