1 2025:CGHC:22592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4389 of 2022 1. Rishi Kumar Sahu S/o Late Garib Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Antagarhi P.S. Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2. Smt. Bijhwarin W/o Late Garib Ram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Antagarhi P.S. Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3. Smt. Manjulata Sahu W/o Late Girish Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Antagarhi P.S. Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 4. Ku. Kirty D/o Late Girish Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Antagarhi P.S. Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5. Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Shri Baliram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Surajpura, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 6. Smt. Pushpa Sahu W/o Shri Chanduram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tivraiyya, P.S. And District Bemetara (C.G.) 7. Smt. Usha Sahu W/o Shri Shiv Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Bhilai- 3, Gitanjali Nagar, P.S. Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Circuit Board, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner Durg Division, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer Saja, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 4. The Naib Tehsildar Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5. Dwarika Sahu S/o Thanwar Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Antargarhi, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 6. Thanwar Sahu S/o Narad Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Antargarhi, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 2 ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. For Respondent No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 09/06/2025 1. The present petition has been filed for the following relief (s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of respondent authorities / court below. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondent No.1 and confirm the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the respondent No. 4 in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petitioner may be given.” 2. The facts of the case are that the father namely Garib Ram Sahu of petitioners had filed an application before the respondent no. 4 for dispossessing the private respondent no. 5 & 6 from the disputed government land bearing survey no./khasra no. 445, area 0.05 decimals situated at village Antargarhi, Tahsil - Berla, the respondents No. 5 & 6 herein have illegally encroached the said land and started construction on the said area, and they are misusing the government land, therefore, immediately take action against the respondent no. 5 & 6 vide order dated 09.11.2009. After receiving application dated 09.11.2009 by the respondent no. 4, he has called a report of the disputed Govt. Land by the concerned Revenue Inspector, the Revenue Inspector has submitted investigation report of the same to the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 4 has after obtaining the report registered a case on 08.06.2010 against the private respondent 5 & 6 3 and passed the order of issuing notice to the private respondent. The respondent no. 5 & 6 after receiving the notice, have filed the reply to the show cause notice and stated therein that they have constructed the house upon subject government land, because, their family became large therefore they are constructing a small house upon the subject land (Annexure P/2). The respondent no. 4 after giving opportunity to respondent no. 5 & 6 for defense the case and after hearing both the parties, has passed the order on 18.10.2010 dispossessing the respondent no. 5 & 6 for encroachment of disputed govt. land i.e. khasra no. 445 on the basis of report of Patwari and Revenue Inspector, and further also directed to the Halka Patwari that after dispossession of the private respondents from the disputed land thereafter files a dispossession report Annexure P/3 (Colly). Thereafter the private respondent no. 5 & 6 have filed appeal before the respondent no. 3 against order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 3 has dismissed the appeal of the private respondent no. 5 & 6 on 18.04.2011 and confirmed the order dated 18.10.2010( Annexure P/4). Further the private respondent no. 5 & 6 have filed appeal before the respondent no. 2 against the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 2 has allowed the appeal of respondent no. 5 & 6 on 10.08.2015 and set-aside the order dated 18.04.2011 and 18.10.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3 & 4 (Annexure P/5). The petitioners have challenged the same before the respondent no. 1 and filed the revision against the order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 1 has dismissed the revision of the petitioners on 09.02.2022 and passed impugned order against the petitioners and confirmed the order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent no. 1 & 2 is bad in law. The patta of disputed government land filed by private respondent is disputed and the concerned secretary of gram panchayat has never approved the proposal for issuing the patta in favour of the private respondents, hence, the finding of impugned order is a perverse finding, Further, the respondent no. 1 4 has wrongly appreciated that the patta of the disputed land issued in favour of private respondent no. 5 & 6 by the concerned authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land in question is a way of road of village and after construction a house by the private respondents No. 5 & 6, it is obstructing the petitioners and other villagers, therefore, the private respondent without any title of said land, they are illegally possessing and constructing a house, therefore, the respondent no. 3 has rightly passed the order of dispossession of respondent no. 5 & 6 on the government disputed land, which is a well and reasoning and public interest order. 5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision of the petitioners on the ground that investigation has not been done therefore at this juncture a direction may be issued for remanding back the matter to the Tehsildar for fresh adjudication after due investigation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 & 6 submits that the petitioners have come before this Court against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 09.02.2022. In the year 2015, the order of the commissioner was passed in favour of the respondents No. 5 & 6 and against the said patta, petitioners have never challenged the same in the year 2015. Till now petitioners have never challenged the patta. The respondents No. 5 & 6 have also produced the certified copy of the patta before the Commissioner and Board of Revenue. They have not encroached any of part of the land and in this regard, the respondents No. 5 & 6 have annexed photographs of the land which clearly reflects that the roads are vacant and no obstruction has been done on their part. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On perusal of the records, it transpires the fact that the Tehsildar has considered+ the respondents No. 5 & 6 as the encroachers of the government inhabited land without obtaining and examining the record of the Gram Panchayat in relation to the said lease, whereas the respondents No. 5 & 6 are in possession of the said land on the basis of lease/patta received by them. The Additional Commissioner, on the 5 basis of documents, evidence and proof available in the case, has considered the procedure followed by the Tehsildar in the investigation as illegal. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 passed the order in favour of the respondents No. 5 & 6. As such considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the impugned order having been perused, this Court does not find a strong case made out for invoking the writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.06.13 10:49:22 +0530