1 2025:CGHC:10849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 813 of 2021 1 - Girdhari Lal Bandhey S/o Bodhan Lal Bandhey, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Rengakathera, Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kartik Ram Gayakwad, S/o Jitan Ram, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Rengakathera, Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Rengakathera, Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, -2- District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.03.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned final notice dated 14.12.2020 & 01.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby removal of the house of the petitioners and further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities that before removal of the house of the petitioners provide an alternate arrangement to the petitioners may be provided for the rehabilitation, or further any accommodation may be provided, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to cover the entire land by the fencing because if once the fencing is made the petitioners were not able to cross there land and may not be able to go into their houses. (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities that if possible, then may imposed some fine amount and allot the name as a temporary in the name of the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 3 (iv) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Mr. Khichariya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have raised a construction of a house over a part of Survey No.340 situated at Village Rengakhathera, Ranitarai, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). He would further submit that the ‘Gouthan’ as per the scheme of the State Government has already been constructed by the Panchayat. He would contend that there was no occasion for the Sarpanch to issue an eviction notice against the petitioners. He would further contend that vide order dated 04.02.2021, the interim protection was granted to the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Khichariya. He would submit that any order or decision taken by the Gram Panchayat is appealable before the Sub-Divisional Officer according to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules of 1995’). -4- 4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the order/notice/decision of the Sarpanch/Gram Panchayat is appealable according to the provisions of the Rules of 1995 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), I am not inclined to keep this matter pending. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) according to the provisions of the Rules of 1995. If the petitioners prefer an appeal before the said authority, it is expected that the authority concerned shall decide the appeal in an objective manner strictly in accordance with the law. 6. As the interim order is operating in favour of the petitioners, the same shall remain in force for a further period of 60 days. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha