1 2025:CGHC:32663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2203 of 2016 • Vishnu Jaiswal S/o Late Shri P. L. Jaiswal, Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Tingipur, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Tahsildar, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Govind Sharma, S/o Late Shri Kabulchand Sharma, Caste Brahmin, R/o Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6. Nirmala Singh, W/o Late Shri Jyoti Bhushan, R/o Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Gopal Prasad Sharma, Aged about 52 years, S/o Late Kaboolchand Sharma, R/o Main Road, Katghora, Tehsil-Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.10.09 18:39:04 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Section 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment made by the respondents No. 5 and 6 from the road in dispute. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Kharsa No. 2117 (old Khasra No. 314), Patwari Halka No. 8, village Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.). The petitioner alongwith some of the villagers of the village Katghora submitted an application before the respondent No. 4 Tahsildar Katghora, District - Korba on 24.02.2014 for reopening of nistari road of ward No. 9 named as Gayatri Temple towards Tingipur road which was being used by the villagers of village Tingipur since a long period. The respondent No. 4 after receipt of the said application, called a report from the Patwari on 26.07.2014. Thereafter, notices were issued to respondents No. 5 and 6 who have alleged to have encroached upon the public road. In response to the said notice, both the respondents have appeared before the respondent No. 4 and submitted their reply. 3. In the reply, the respondent No. 6 has admitted the fact that earlier there was a road and the same was used by the villagers. In the proceedings before respondent No. 4 a report was submitted by the Patwari on 10.08.2014 along with Nistar Patra and Map in which the Patwari in clear terms stated that the road in dispute was 3 used by the villagers since a long period and the said road has been blocked and encroached by the respondents No. 5 and 6. On 02.09.2014 the respondent No. 4 directed the Patwari to reopen the road from Radha Sagar to Bus Stand in accordance with the revenue record. i.e. Nistari Patrak Baji-Ul-Urg. 4. In pursuance to the said order though the revenue authorities and the officers of the District Administration tried to take initiative for reopening the road, but the same could not be materialized for the reasons best known to the authorities. The petitioner along with other villagers again submitted representations before the respondent No. 2 on 04.12.2014 and 15.06.2015 in respect of the aforesaid inaction on the part of the higher revenue authorities. It is also the case of the petitioner that after submission of the representation before the respondent No. 2, on 27.06.2016 the respondent No. 4 passed an order directing the removal of wall/encroachment of the road by exercising power under Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. On 16.07.2016 the respondent No. 4 along with his team went to the spot and started removal of the wall/encroachment from the subject premises, however, when the respondent No. 5 & 6 objected the same the revenue authorities came back from the said place without removing the encroachment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent authorities failed to discharge their duty provided under the law by not removing the encroachment upon the road, which was being used by the petitioner along with other villagers of village 4 Katghora. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents No. 5 and 6 are influential persons of District Korba and because of their status the revenue authorities are utterly failed in discharging their legal duties in spite of repeated requests and prayers made by the respondent authorities and would pray for allowing the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment made by the respondents No. 5 and 6 from the road in dispute. 6. An application for intervening in the matter has been filed by one Gopal Prasad Sharma for the reason mentioned in the said application and also considering that he is the purchaser of the disputed property, the intervention application is allowed. In the application it has been contended that the intervenor has purchased this disputed land from earlier owner Mahabir Prasad S/o Surajbhan Agrawal by registered sale deed dated 04.05.1995 and their names have been muted in the said land. The intervenor has constructed the house in it, as such, the contention raised by the petitioner that the said land is recorded in the Nistar Patrika and it is been used by them. It has also been contended that from bare perusal of the Annexure P/4 Patwari Report, it is quite vivid that Baji-Ul-Urg shows the way in Khasra No. 300, 302, 304/1 towards Radhasagar pond. It has also been contended from perusal of the map, it is quite vivid that Khasra No. 301/1, 2 and 4 are adjoining each other and all the Khasra Nos. belong to private parties and there is no way in the said lands for public use as alleged by the petitioner. 5 7. From the perusal of the said averments made by the petitioner and the intervenor, there is disputed facts are involved in this case which cannot be adjudicated by this Court, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse available him under the civil law. 8. It is made clear that all the contentions made by the parties are left open and the if petitioner files civil suit, that may be considered and decided by the trial Court in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence and material on record. 9. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish