1 2025:CGHC:41828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4429 of 2025 Shashikala Singh Rajput Wife Of Mehtap Singh Rajput Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gandatola, Rajnandgaon Churiya, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Sub -Divisional Officer (Revenue) Churiya District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohla- Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 5 - Village Panchayat Chilhati Through Its Sarpanch Janpad Panchayat Ambagarh Chowki District- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following direction: 2 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned letter communication/ order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 5. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 / authority to not forcefully evicted the petitioner form the khasra no. 62/2 rakba 0.502 total 225 sq.ft. situated at Village Chilhati for the purpose of construction of pond except the established procedure of law. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Relevant facts of this case are that petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by notice/letter communication dated 15.05.2025 issued by respondent No.5, whereby he was directed to stop the construction work on the land of Khasra No.62/2 situated at Village -Chilhati area 0.502, 225 sq.ft. stated that said land is reserve for pond. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has purchased the alleged land from one Smt. Yogani Nishad through an agreement, however, there is no registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He further contended that without proving proper opportunity of hearing, respondent No.5 has issued notice against the petitioner. Hence, petitioner has come-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the land in question is a 3 government land and it is reserved for pond. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned notice/letter. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of dispute/relief, above submissions of counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.5 to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, proceed further in accordance with relevant rules/law/regulation. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-