1 2025:CGHC:2569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 302 of 2025 1 Rajkumar Dore S/o Hiralal Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No 16, Kuwara, Navagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 Hiraram Dore S/o Savla Dore Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No 16, Kuwara, Navagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 Collector Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 Sub Divisional Officer Navagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate Navagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate, Nandghat, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 Superintendent Of Police Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 7 Government Of India Ministry Of Rural Development Department Incharge Of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna Gramin (P.M.A.Y.-G) Of All States And U.Ts 8 Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kuwara, Block- Navagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Shri Satish Gupta, G.A. For Respondent No. 7: Shri R.K. Mishra, DSGI Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 15/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is questioning the order dated 12.01.2025, issued by the Additional District Magistrate by which the administrative Officers have been assigned the work to maintain the law and order as the respondents are taking steps for removal of possession of the petitioner from the land in question where he is residing for the last 20 years by constructing a house with the help of fund sanctioned under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. 2. Learned State counsel submits that the alleged encroachment made by the petitioners namely Rajkumar Dore and Hairaram Dore has already been removed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice has been served to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. He further controverted the statement made by the learned State counsel by saying that only part of the encroachment has been removed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached. 5. Perusal of order dated 12.01.2025 issued by the Office of Additional District Magistrate shows that work has been assigned to administrative Officers to 3 remove the encroachment on the basis of proposal made by the Gram Panchayat under the Adhiniyam, 1993. Further, considering the submissions made by the parties and considering the fact that no notice has been issued to the petitoiner, it is directed that status quo as on today shall be maintained by the parties on the land in question and liberty is reserved for the Gram Panchayat to proceed under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions prescribed under Section 56 (4 ) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti