1 2025:CGHC:564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6505 of 2024 1 - Sukdev Meshram S/o Late Patiram Aged About 62 Years R/o Jaisakarra Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Kamlesh S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Rajak Aged About 45 Years R/o Girhoda Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue New Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue Circuit Court, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 The Commissioner Bastar Division Jagdalpur Link Court Kanker District - Kanker (C.G.) 4 The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Sub Division - Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 The Tahsildar Cum Information Officer Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 6 Ranjeet Meriya S/o Late Johan Aged About 50 Years R/o Jaisakarra Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 7 Ghasneen Bai Wd/o Late Shivcharan Aged About 70 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post 2 Charamatahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 8 Lalit Kumar Halba S/o Late Makhanlal Aged About 52 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 9 Bahur Jamdar S/o Late Adhariram Aged About 62 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 10 Rajendra Kumar Pisda S/o Late Bhakaluram Aged About 50 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charamatahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 11 Ghanshyam Jain S/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 70 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 12 Lalchand Jain S/o Late Siyaram Aged About 48 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 13 Radhe Lal Jain S/o Late Siyaram Aged About 50 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 14 Parmanand Jain S/o Late Gauram Aged About 56 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 15 Prem Narayan Jain S/o Late Agya Aged About 56 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 16 Gansuram Netam S/o Mansingh Aged About 70 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 17 Ramji Pisda S/o Late Rohidas Aged About 70 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 18 Charan Pisda S/o Late Rohidas Aged About 65 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 19 Rajendra Jain S/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 65 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 20 Ishwar Jain S/o Late Agya Aged About 62 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama 3 Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 21 Dilip Meshram S/o Late Umed Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 22 Jitendra S/o Late Mukund Aged About 45 Years R/o Jaisakarra Post Charama Tahsil Charama District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by Revenue Board in Revision Case No. R.N./ON/R/B-21/172/2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 with merger orders. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the private respondents have moved application before the Tahsildar-charama stating that the petitioners are constructing the boundary wall and obstructed the passage of the private respondents. On the basis of the same, Tahsildar-Charama inquired the matter and passed the order on 31.12.2020 directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment within 5 days. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before SDO who by order dated 08.07.2021 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thereagainst they approached the Divisional Officer who also by order dated 17.05.2024 rejected the claim of the petitioners holding that the revenue records does not show that the land belong to the petitioners i.e. Khasra No. 4 1063/2. According to the petitioners order passed by the authorities are illegal arbitrary and bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while supporting the impugned orders would submit hat the revenue authorities after following the due process of law and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners passed the orders and there is no illegality at all. The same are just and proper warranting no interference of this court. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Perusal of the documents would show that there is concurrent finding of the courts below and no one have right to encroach or construct the building on the land of passage and the present writ petition is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved by orders passed he may approach the Civil court by claiming his title over the land and may seek permanent injunction from the concerned court. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti