1 / 6 2025:CGHC:56632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5549 of 2025 Surendra Jaiswal S/o Shri Suggulal Jaiswal Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Village- Gandai, Tehsil- Gandai, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai, District : Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tehsildar Gandai, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat-Gandai, District : Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh 5 - Saraswati Bai W/o Shri Bhagchand Kurre R/o Ward No. 09, Tehsil- Gandai, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.26 10:31:58 +0530 2 / 6 6 - Arshad Khan S/o Rafique Khan R/o Ward No. 09, Tehsil- Gandai, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.5 & 6 : Mr. Premshankar Yadav, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 20/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce entire records relating to case of the Petitioner. 10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the order dated- 27.05.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Respondent No.1 and also quash the order dated-19.09.2024 (Annexure- P/2) passed by Respondent No.2. 10.3 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ and stayed the effect and operation of orders dated-27.05.2025 (Annexure-P/1) and 19.09.2024 (Annexure-P/2) , till the pendency of the instant petition. 10.4 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to take action. 10.5 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts of the case.” 3 / 6 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in possession of part of land bearing kh. No.87 situated within the territory of Nagar Panchayat, Gandai since long time by constructing superstructure over it. Petitioner with intent to construct new building on the land over which superstructure was constructed had submitted an application on 19.06.2023 for grant of building permission before respondent No.4/Nagar Panchayat which was allowed vide Annexure P-3 dated 09.10.2023 . He contended that thereafter petitioner started construction and at the primary stage of construction, respondents No. 5 & 6 have raised objection on it. He also contended that appeal was also filed by respondents No. 5 & 6 before the Collector against grant of building permission to the petitioner and Collector, without considering facts and circumstances of case in an appropriate manner including the fact that petitioner is in possession of part of land bearing kh. no.87 since 1982 as per revenue records, has erroneously passed order Annexure P-2 setting aside building permission dated 09.10.2023. He also contended that contents of order passed by the Collector placed on record at page No.18 of writ petition would show that the Collector came to conclusion that petitioner is raising construction on the government land bearing kh. no.109/1 which is situated adjacent to land bearing kh. no.87, whereas, the correct fact is that petitioner was granted building permission on the part of land bearing kh. no.87 and on the said land itself he was raising construction. Considering the objection raised by private parties, petitioner also submitted an application before the Tahsildar under provision of Section 129 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 for demarcation of area possessed by him since 1982 on kh. no.87 which 4 / 6 till date is pending consideration. Unless and until application of petitioner is considered and area of land possessed by the petitioner is demarcated it cannot be said that petitioner is making attempt to encroach upon land bearing kh. no.109/1. 3. Learned counsel for State/respondents No.1 to 3 would oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that Collector while deciding appeal filed by private respondents against grant of building permission in favour of petitioner has set aside the building permission granted by respondent No.4 on two grounds,. firstly, that on spot inspection, petitioner was found raising construction over part of land bearing kh. no.109/1 which is government grass land, by digging pit for erection of column and secondly, that claim of petitioner that he is in possession of part of land bearing kh. No.87 since 1982 to be a government land and respondent No.4 without verifying the facts as to land on which permission is sought by petitioner is private ownership land or government land, granted building permission. He contended that unless and until petitioner is having any right or title to possess the land, respondent No.4 erred in granting building permission and, therefore, Collector considering the report submitted by team constituted by Tahsildar has passed the order dated 19.09.2024 Annexure P-2 and the said order is affirmed by State Govt. vide Annexure P-1 dated 27.05.2025. There is no irregularity or illegality in the decision taken by respondents No. 2 & 1 respectively. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that considering the revenue document on which possession of petitioner is mentioned, building permission was granted. 5 / 6 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 & 6 would submit that respondent No.4 has granted permission in favour of petitioner for construction over the government land which is not permissible. 6. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties, perused the pleadings made and documents enclosed along with writ petition as also reply filed by respective respondents. 7. Thrust of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is in possession of part of land bearing kh. No.87 since last about 40 years with superstructure constructed over it and in the year 2023 he wanted to renovate old construction by raising new construction for which he has sought building permission from respondent No.4 . He also contended that Collector misconstruing the facts has come to conclusion that petitioner is also raising construction over part of land bearing kh.no.109/1 which is not correct and therefore petitioner had submitted application for demarcation of his ownership land bearing kh. No.87. Perusal of order Annexure P-2 passed by the Collector would show that one of the ground which was considered by Collector for cancelling building permission granted by respondent No.4 is that claim of petitioner over the land bearing kh. no.87 is a government land recorded in revenue records. Petitioner before the Collector has not submitted any order or authority issued by the competent authority allotting said government land in his favour by way of patta or any other document and accordingly concluded that land bearing kh. no.87 measuring 1.817 hectare is government land and therefore respondent No.4 without seeking prior approval from the revenue officials erred in granting building permission in favour of 6 / 6 petitioner. One of the other consideration based on complaint made by private respondents is that petitioner is raising construction over part of land bearing kh. no.109/1 also . In page No.18 of writ petition Collector to arrive at such conclusion has considered the spot inspection report by team of officials constituted by Tahsildar. 8. In aforementioned facts of case where the land bearing kh. no.87 and 109/1 to be government land is not in dispute, in absence of any authority under law or allotment order by any of the authority either by Municipal Council or by revenue official in favour of petitioner of part of land bearing kh. no.87, in the opinion of this Court, Collector has not committed any error in setting aside the order of building permission granted by respondent No.4, assigning reason that such permission ought not to have been granted without prior concurrence of revenue officials. Revision/appeal preferred by petitioner before the State Govt. also came to be dismissed vide Annexure P-1 which in view of above discussions, cannot be said to be erroneous . 9. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen