1 2025:CGHC:55969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6038 of 2025 1. Shyam Kumar Sarthi S/o Milu Ram Sarthi Aged About 35 Years R/o - Ward No. 32, Iti Depo Colony, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) 2. Firtin Bai Yadav W/o Mithain Lal Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o - Iti Depo Colony, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Desastar Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector District Korba (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) 4. Tahsildar (Najul) Korba District Korba (C.G.) 5. Nagar Palik Nigam Korba Through Its Commissioner, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4: Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Dhiraj K Wankhede, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.11.18 14:13:48 +0530 2 “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Notices dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4. 10.2. Any other relief (s) / order (s) / direction (s) in favour of petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are in possession of land in question since long. Petitioner No.1 is residing in house constructed over land in question, however, he has not been served with any notice. Petitioner No.2 is wife of Mithailal. Both petitioners have not filed any proceeding for allotment of land nor writ petition before this Court. Proceeding which was initiated by the Collector is based on the order dated 13.3.2024 passed by this Court in WPC Nos.1473/2024, 1474/2024 and 1487/2024. Tahsildar (Nazul) passed the order on 6.11.2025 asking the petitioners along with others to remove their encroachment upon government land else action for removal of encroachment will be taken. Impugned notice is issued in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the notice, Annexure P-1, be interdicted. 3. Learned counsel for respondent State submits that petitioners are not encroachers by raising construction over government land. Encroachment and construction of superstructure over government land is made by Shambhulal, Mithailal, Murilal, Arvind Yadav and Hemlata Verma. Petitioner No.2 is wife of 3 Mithailal. Writ petitions filed by Arvind Yadva, Murlilal and Smt. Hemlata were disposed of by this Court directing the Committee, headed by the Additional Collector / Joint Collector / SDO (R) along with two other members, to consider claim of petitioners therein afresh. As status of petitioner along with aforementioned three persons, who earlier preferred writ petition before this Court, is one and the same, therefore, after receipt of the order of this Court, the District Level Committee considered the claim of all the persons who have encroached upon government land after issuing notice to them. Notice was issued in the name of Shambhulal Yadav, the person who encroached upon government land, and as he was not found on spot or address, notice was pasted/affixed at his residence. Notice issued in the name of Mithailal was receipt and accepted by his wife i.e. petitioner No.2 herein. Mithailal has also submitted reply to notice issued by the District Level Committee and his claim along with others for allotment of land in their favour was considered and it was recommended to reject their claim. He also contended that pursuant to recommendation made by the Committee, Tahsildar issued notice for removal of encroachment in which husband of petitioner No.2 has submitted reply. He submits that as claim of petitioners has already been rejected by the Committee, 4 they have no right to remain possession of government land, subject matter of writ petition. He also submits that the land is identified for extension of the District Court building. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 supported the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 4. 5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents placed along with writ petition and also documents placed by learned State Counsel during course of hearing. 6. Petitioner No.1 is not the person who had encroached upon government land by constructing structure, but it is one Shambhu Lal Yadav. Submission of learned State Counsel is that petitioners are only residing in the structure raised by Shambhu Lal Yadav. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of Mithailal, who was noticed by the Committee as also by Tahsildar. However, for the reasons best known to Mithailal, he has not filed writ petition, if for any reason he was aggrieved by any action of the Committee or Tahsildar. Learned counsel for petitioners could not able to convince this Court as to how and in what manner Shambhu Lal Yadav is in possession of land, which is subject matter of proceeding initiated by the authority for removal of encroachment. He, however, made an attempt to submit that petitioner No.1 is brother of Shiv Prasad, in whose name electricity connection is issued. 5 However, neither Shambhu Lal Yadav nor Shiv Prasad is before this Court. 7. In the above facts of the case, I do not find any good ground to admit this petition or to grant any relief, as claimed by petitioners. 8. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge