1 2025:CGHC:49705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 261 of 2019 Smt. Kuldeep Kaur W/o Shri S.S. Bagga Aged About 62 Years R/o Towara Surajpur Right Side Main Road Bishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The General Manger ,south Eastern Coalfields Limited Bishrampur,bishrampur Area, Police Station And Post Bishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Estate Officer South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bishrampur Area ,District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 06/10/2025 1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to 2 set-aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure P- 1) so far as rejection of amendment application is concerned and allow the amendment application and petitioner be permitted to incorporate the amendment in the return, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to supply the demarcation report of the land of petitioner is concerned, if any. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.” 2. Brief facts of the case as reflected from the writ petition is that a notice dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P/4) was issued to the petitioner under the provisions contained in Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of the suit premises inter-alia pleading that the petitioner is in encroachment of the land of the respondents - SECL and, therefore, she was directed to appear before respondent No. 2 – Estate Officer, SECL, Surajpur and to submit the reply. Pleadings further reflects that a written statement was filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is in occupation of the land comprising piece of Khasra No. 108/1 situated at Bishrampur. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for substituting the Khasra No. 478 in place of Khasra No. 108 and 108/1 in the written statement. The said application was rejected by the Estate Officer vide impugned order dated 18.12.2018. Against which, instant writ petition has been preferred questioning the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently while filing the written statement, Khasra No.108 and 108/01 was mentioned, whereas the petitioner is in possession of Khasra No. 478, which is not the property of the respondents -SECL. He also submits that the notice issued 3 by the Estate Officer does not contain any details of the property like Khasra number etc. to demonstrate that the petitioner is in encroachment of the land of the respondents -SECL. He further submits that there is no specific reason has been assigned by the respondent No. 2/Estate Officer for rejecting the aforesaid application for amendment filed by the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and the relief, as sought for, may be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/SECL while opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the written statement was filed by the petitioner mentioning that she is in possession of land bearing khasra Nos. 108 and 108/01 and now by virtue of amendment, Khasra No. 478 is proposed to be substituted in place of Khasra Nos. 108 & 108/1, which is not permissible, as when the petitioner came to know that the land bearing Khasra No. 108 and 108/01 is the land of the respondents - SECL, aforesaid application of amendment has been filed, therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the records annexed with the petition, it appears that the notice dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure P/4) does not contain the fact in which, Khasra number, the petitioner is an encroacher. Simply, it states the details of the property where it is situated. Perusal of the impugned order also does not indicate as to why the application for amendment was rejected and by one line it has been rejected. The defence of the petitioner is that she is not in encroachment of land of the respondents- SECL and for which, she sought amendment in the written statement for substitution of Khasra 4 No. 478, in place of Khasra No. 108 & 108/1, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be met if the said application is permitted to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.12.2018 is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The application under Order 6 Rules 17 of CPC filed by the petitioner for incorporating the amendment in the written Statement is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall incorporate the amendment in the written statement within a period of 15 days from the next date of hearing before the respondent No. 2- Estate Officer, SECL. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. 9. It is expected that State Officer would make all endeavor to decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously. 10. In view of above, all the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.10 17:59:39 +0530