1 / 4 2025:CGHC:46468 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4848 of 2025 1 - Toran Sahu Son of Mehar Singh Aged About 38 Years Caste Teli 2 - Dhanwantin Bai W/o Toran Sahu Aged About 29 Years Caste-Teli 3 - Hemin Bai W/o Mehar Singh Aged About 60 Years Caste - Teli, 4 - Vina Sahu D/o Toran Sahu Aged About 60 Years Caste- Teli, 5 - Divya Sahu D/o Toran Sahu Aged About 13 Years Caste Teli, 6 - David Sahu S/o Toran Sahu Aged About 11 Years Caste - Teli, Petitioner No.4 to 6 are minor hence represented through Natural Guardian Father Toran Sahu 7 - Jogi Ram Dhanendra S/o Sohahi Aged About 78 Years Caste - Halba 8 - Suraj Bai W/o Jogi Ram Aged About 74 Years Caste- Halba, all are R/o Village- Ghawdetola Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Mohla - Manpur Ambagarh Chowki District- Mohla - Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 3 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mohla District- Mohla Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Ambagarh Choki District- Mohla-Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Gram Panchayat, Ghawdetola (Adejhar) District- Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.12 18:45:50 +0530 2 / 4 6 - Milau Ram Son of Sohan Ram Caste - Kalar 7 - Shivshankar Son of Chainuram Caste- Mahar 8 - Vijay Kumar Son of Pratap Singh Caste- Kalar 9 - Maansingh Son of Koduram Caste - Teli Respondent No.6 to 9 are Resident of Village- Ghawdetola, Police- Station Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. The grievance of the petitioners is that Respondent no. 6 to 9 being a member of Gram Panchayat have boycotted the petitioners in the village, wherein the petitioners. It is alleged by the private respondents who are the members of village Panchayat Ghawaretola (Adejhar), District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) that the petitioner No. 2 has constructed porch in government land bearing khasra no. 129/1, rakba 0.162 hectare government land situated at Village Ghawaretola (Adejhar) in which she is running a shop of tea for her livelihood last 15 years but the private respondents are not happy and they are given fire to the small shop of the petitioners on 16.06.2024, the petitioner No. 2 made written complaint to the concerned police with that effect in which the police is investigated the case and come to the conclusion that no cognizable offence is found to be committed. On the other hand the 3 / 4 private respondents have boycotted the petitioners from the village panchayat the petitioners have made written complaint to the Collector, Tahsildar and concerned Police Station. Subsequently formal order of eviction has been passed by Tahsildar Ambagarh Chowki, whereby the petitioners are completely boycotted by the private respondents and also their family, complaint has been made to the concerned authority with that effect whereas non-cognizable offence is found by the police, whereas the petitioners are paying the requisite fee for Nal-Jal Yojna, House/Shop and other taxes to the village Panchayat, the difficulty and grievance of the petitioners, further they have been boycotted in every village activities and the village Panchayat Ghawaretola (Adejhar) and its members warned the whole village to not make any relation with the family of petitioners. Hence, this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that Respondents No.6 to 9 have no power to boycott the petitioners in the village and even have no authority to direct or to remove any encroachment over the government land only the Tehsildar is competent to remove the encroachment over the government land under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. He would lastly contend that due to the orders passed by the Respondent No.6 to 9 the petitioners and their family members are completely boycotted from the village which is against the statutory provisions of law and the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. 4 / 4 3. Learned State counsel submits that they have no objection in deciding the representation of the petitioner. 4. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to file afresh representation before the Respondent No.2 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such representation being filed, the said Respondent No.2 in turn shall decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law after verifying the fact that whether any committee has boycotted the petitioner from the Society and if it is found that the petitioner has been socially boycotted then the Collector shall follow the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and others {(2018) 7 SCC 192}. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu