2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) No. 1574 of 2014 1. K.P. Pradhan And Anr. S/o Sro Banshidhar Pradhan Aged About 58 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward No.2, Baghbahara, Dist Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue Distt Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2. Nishant Pradhan S/o K.P.Pradhan, Aged About 58 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward No.2, Baghbahara, Dist Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue Distt Mahasamund, Cg, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Principle Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawna, New Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog State Govt. Of C.G., Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Collector Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4. Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5. S.D.M. Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6. Tahsildar Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7. Police Station Incharge Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 8. Gendi Bai D/o Manrakhan, W/o Chini Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Fuljhar, Ps Baghbahra, Distt Mahasamund, Present Address Shanti Nagar House Of Narayan Dhruv, Baghbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 9. Rekhraj S/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chingariya Baghbahra, Distt Mahasamund, Cg, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A.. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking for the following relief : ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.07 17:55:42 +0530 -2- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case for perusal of this Hon'ble Court; 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 31/07/2014 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.2 i.e. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusucit Janjati Ayog Raipur (C.G.); 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 3, 4 & 6 to no action will be taken against the petitioners for eviction of the house of the petitioners; 10.4 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case which emerges that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31/07/2014 vide order No. 2258/AjjaAa/2014 issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusucit Janjati Ayog Jal Vihar Colony Vihar Raipur C.G. by which the petitioners have aggrieved because the respondent No. 2. has issued order for eviction of the house of petitioners that the petitioners have possessed the house since last 18 years the petitioner have paid house tax before Nagar Panchayat Bagbahra and Nagar Panchayat - agbahra has given receipt. That the Electricity department has given electricity bill and petitioner has paid the electricity paid continuously and second appeal No.162/2009 parties being Bindeshwar Paswan and others Vs Gendi Bai and others is pending before this Hon'ble court inspite of that the respondent No.2 has issued order for eviction of the house of the petitioners hence this petition is being made before this Hon'ble court for quashing the order 31/07/2014 issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. C.G. Rajya Anusujit Janjati Ayog Raipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil dispute is there between the petitioner and the respondent No.9 (K.P. Pradhan) and Civil Suit was also filed thereafter, first appeal and thereafter second appeal was also filed with respect to the same dispute. He submits that an application was filed by the respondent no.9 before the the respondent No.2 i.e. C.G. Rajya Anusujit Janjati Ayog Raipur. The -3- application was registered as case no. 761/2011/2/2013 and vide recommendation/proposal dated 31/07/2014, the respondent No.2 directed the Revenue and Police Officer’s of the District to get vacate the house / boundary wall from possession of the petitioner and delivered it to respondent No.9. The said order was passed by the respondent no.2 without any jurisdiction or authority. He submits that the function of the respondent No.2 is only in respect to recommendatory in nature. No express order can be passed by the respondent no.2 to vacate the disputed house/ boundary wall of the petitioner. Therefore, this order Annexure P/1 deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the order was passed by the respondent No.2 directing the Revenue and Police Officer’s of the District, however, no action has been taken as per the return. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended documents. 6. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that while exercising power under section 10 (1) Chapter - 3 of C.G. Rajya Anusujit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995, petitioner and respondent No. 9 were called and directed to produce the documents. It has further been observed that land bearing Khasra no. खं०नं0-1/8 खं 14, 1/14ट 1/14 श, 1/14 व 1/8 स/14, 1/14, 2/5/14, 3/2/14, 4/2/14. 5/4/14, रकबा 0.05 hect. 70 × 85 - 5950 Sqft. was purchased by respondent No.8 (Gendri Bai) was recorded in the name of respondent No. 9. It also appears that allegation is leveled against the petitioner that boundary wall has been constructed about 441 sqft. And by constructing house unauthorizedly occupied the said land for eviction of which the application was filed and the ultimately the order was passed. A civil suit was also filed in respect of the property mentioned in the impugned order by the wife of the petitioner and other person for seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The civil suit No. 1A/2006 was registered in the year 2005 which was dismissed on 29/09/2008 by the I Civil Judge, Mahasamund against which appeal was filed on 09/03/2009 in Civil Appeal No. 27A/2008 which was allowed by I Additional District Judge, Mahasamund. Thereafter a second appeal was also filed before this Court which was pending consideration at the time of passing of the impugned order. -4- 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that second appeal No. 162/2009 stood dismissed by this Court. Therefore it appears that the civil dispute with regard to subject property was pending before different Courts including this Court also. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court judgment dated 07/11/2016 in which it has been held by this Court that Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusucit Janjati Ayog has not been conferred with adjudicatory the function and this function are only advisory in nature. 8. From perusal of the impugned order it is explicit that an expressed direction was given by the respondent No.2 (Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusucit Janjati Ayog) to evict the petitioner from the disputed property. In the opinion of the Court the respondent No.2 is denuded of the power to pass such an express order particularly when the civil dispute in this regard was already pending consideration before different Courts including this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 31/07/2014 vide order No. 2258/AjjaAa/2014 (Annexure P/1) is here by set-aside. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish