1 2025:CGHC:46237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4794 of 2025 1 - Chandra Prakash Sahu S/o Shri Kumar Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And Post Tushma, Police Station And Tehsil Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Janjgir-Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gopichand Sahu S/o Shri Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 42 Years Panch Ward No. 02 Gram Panchayat Tushma, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, R/o Village And Post Tushma, Police Station And Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Ramesh Nayak, Advocate For State : Shri Ajit Singh, Government Advocate and Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.11 17:49:41 +0530 2 10/09/2025 1. The case, as projected, is that respondent No.3 is an elected Panch of Ward No.2 of Gram Panchayat Tushma. Respondent No.3 encroached a government land situated in Revenue Village Tushma bearing Khasra No.1808/1 area about 0.20 acres and a house was constructed by him. Family of respondent No.3 resides in the same house which is constructed upon the aforesaid government land by way of encroachment. On 23.07.2025, the petitioner filed an application under Section 36 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before respondent No.2 along with an affidavit and documents. On 01.08.2025, respondent No.2 heard the case on admission and adjourned the same for 18.08.2025 for order on admission. On 18.08.2025, respondent No.2 passed order on admission and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition: “10.1. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the Case No. 202508060100051/A-89/2023, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 18/08/2025 passed by the respondent no. 02 in Case No. 202508060100051/A-89/2023, in the interest of justice. 3 10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 02 to decide the application filed by the petitioner under section 36(3) C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 within a stipulated time period. 10.4 That, such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Respondent No.3 is ineligible and disqualified to contest the election for the post of Panch of Gram Panchayat as per Section 36 (1) (q) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. In a recent judgment in the matter of Janabai v. Additional Commissioner and others, AIR 2018 SC 5068, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when a person shares possession of encroached property by residing there and there is continuance, every member of the family is disqualified to contest or hold the office in the Gram Panchayat. The impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2 is against the aim and object of Section 36 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Respondent No.2 failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner has categorically mentioned and annexed the revenue records of the government land upon which 4 respondent No.3 has made encroachment and built a house on the same land. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner. He may prefer an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and hence this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that there is an alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. He may prefer an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal