1 / 7 2025:CGHC:47200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4902 of 2025 Indira Dwivedi D/o Late J.P. Dwivedi Aged About 56 Years R/o Gali No.- 02, Dwivedi Bhawan, Jabdapara, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, City- District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tehsil Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Kamla Mishra W/o Shri N.P. Mishra Aged About 70 Years 7 - Manoj Mishra S/o Shri N.P. Mishra Aged About 54 Years 8 - Smt. Snehlata Mishra W/o Shri Manoj Mishra Aged About 48 Years Respondent No.6 to 8 are R/o Ward- 60, Triveni Nagar, Opp. Geeta Palace, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 15/09/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the action of the respondent authorities whereby she has been denied the access to her own property and is also challenging the action of the private ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.16 18:37:51 +0530 2 / 7 respondent of erecting of gate over the approach road to her land despite the removal order passed by the different authorities. 2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that he petitioner, a single lady, is the lawful owner of land situated at Triveni Nagar, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The only approach road to her land has been unlawfully obstructed with mala fide intention to usurp the property of the petitioner by the private respondents, who are close relatives of the petitioner and are using political influence to stop the authorities to act as per law & order. The petitioner has been disrespected, abused & even assaulted in many ways since 28.03.2023 when she asked the private respondents to remove the obstruction in the form of a gate on the sole approach road to her property. Even after the assault, the petitioner took the legal approach to the court of law and on 04.06.2025 the obstruction was removed by the order of learned Nayab Tehsildar. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 06 to 08 illegally re-erected the gate on 05.06.2025 in complete violation of the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 06 filed an appeal before the Learned SDO (Revenue) which was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2025. The petitioner filed a representation before the Learned Collector on 18.08.2025 invoking the power of Learned District Magistrate under Section 152 of BNSS to remove unlawful obstruction / nuisance from any way. A complaint was also filed by the petitioner on 09.06.2025 in Police Station, Sarkanda & also before the S.P., Bilaspur & the I.G., Bilaspur Range. The respondent 3 / 7 police authorities, despite being informed of these developments and despite having witnessed the earlier removal of the obstruction, have failed to take any serious actions or coercive measures against the private respondents, citing their political clout leaving the petitioner helpless & hopeless. No initiative has been taken by Revenue authorities and Police authorities to remove the illegal obstruction /nuisance despite repeated complaints. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the act of the private respondents in erecting an unauthorized gate and blocking the only approach road to the petitioner's land amounts to an unlawful deprivation of property and is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. He would next contend that the obstruction of access and repeated harassment have deprived the petitioner of the peaceful use and enjoyment of her land, thereby infringing her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes right to livelihood, shelter and dignity. He would next contend that the illegal obstruction amounts to denial of an easement of necessity, as the land of the petitioner has no other ingress or egress except through the blocked approach road. He would next contend that the respondents' conduct of intimidating, abusing, and physically assaulting the petitioner, who is a single lady, demonstrates abuse of dominance and gender-based harassment, which violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. He would next contend that once the 4 / 7 competent revenue authorities have found the petitioner's claim to be correct and passed orders in her favour, the police was duty-bound to render assistance in ensuring compliance. Their failure to do so, citing political influence of the private respondents, amounts to abdication of statutory duty. He would next contend that despite repeated complaints, the police authorities (respondent no. 5) have failed to take action, citing political influence of respondent no. 7, thereby showing malafide inaction. The petitioner has a legitimate expectation of police protection to safeguard her life and property. He would next contend that the conduct of the private respondents in re-erecting the gate after its lawful removal pursuant to orders of Tahsildar and SDO (Revenue) amounts to deliberate disobedience of lawful orders and contempt of statutory authorities, which is impermissible in law. He would next contend that the learned Tahsildar, Bilaspur, after following due process by issuing notices to the private respondents, passed a reasoned order dated 07.10.2024 directing removal of the unauthorized obstruction. The repeated re- erection of the gate by the private respondents amounts to deliberate defiance of lawful orders of a competent authority, which is impermissible under law and strikes at the root of rule of law. He would next contend that the private respondents filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) after expiry of limitation, without disclosure that the gate had already been removed, and obtained an interim stay on concealment of facts. Such conduct amounts to fraud upon the court, which vitiates all 5 / 7 proceedings. He would next contend that once the competent revenue authorities (Tahsildar and SDO) had adjudicated the matter and directed removal of obstruction, the duty of the police authorities was to enforce compliance and protect the petitioner. Their failure to act despite clear revenue orders amounts to abdication of statutory responsibility. He would next contend that the re-erection of the gate despite removal under warrant and in the presence of police shows that the respondents are acting with political influence, undermining the authority of statutory officers. Such parallel power exercised by private parties is destructive of constitutional governance and amounts to arbitrariness violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He would next contend that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), vide order dated 16.06.2025, vacated the interim stay after considering the petitioner's submissions and documents. Therefore, the respondents' subsequent act of re-erecting the gate amounts to a direct challenge to the adjudicatory authority of the SDO. Such deliberate defiance is destructive of the rule of law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 152 of BNSS reads as under:- 6 / 7 152. Conditional order for removal of nuisance. (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers-(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or (c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion conflagration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or (d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or (e) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; or (f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of,such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order-(i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or (ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or(iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building, or to alter the disposal of such substance; or (iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees; or (v) to fence such tank, well or excavation; or (vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner 7 / 7 provided in the said order,or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute. (2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil Court. Explanation. - A "public place" includes also property belonging to the State, camping grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes. 7. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 152 of BNSS, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file application under Section 152 of the BNSS within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such application being filed, the concerned authority shall decide the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the private respondents No.6 to 9 within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the application. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu