1 2025:CGHC:37575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4970 of 2021 1 - Dinesh Rathore S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Rathore Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ward No. 7, New Chandaniyapara, Janjgir , Tahsil Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sunita Rathore W/o Dinesh Rathore Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Ward No. 7, New Chandaniyapara, Janjgir , Tahsil Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal Water Management , Janjgir Division, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir Canal Branch Sub Division No. 01, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. V. Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31/07/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS restraining the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and the proceeding initiated on the basis of notice dated 15.11.2021 may also be quashed. 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleaded to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Sharma would submit that petitioner No.1 had purchased a land bearing Survey No. 3915/2, admeasuring 0.03 acre (1053 sq. ft.), situated at District Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in the name of petitioner No.2/Smt. Sunita Rathore, from one Thakur Sanat Kumar Singh through a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2000. He would contend that the subject land is a diverted land. He would further submit that respondent No.4 has issued a direction to remove the construction from the subject land on the ground that the petitioners have encroached upon Government land. He would contend that without holding any inquiry or conducting any 3 demarcation, the respondent issued order impugned; thus, he prays for quashing of the order impugned. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent No.3 has issued the impugned order in the form of a notice to petitioner No.1 to remove the construction within a period of seven days, without conducting any inquiry or demarcation, and as the said order has been passed without following due process of law, Annexure P/1 dated 15.11.2021 is hereby quashed. 6. However, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to take appropriate action after due demarcation of the subject land after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim