1 2026:CGHC:20425-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 97 of 2022 1 - Mohan Shyamnani S/o Late Parmanand Shyamnani Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bodri, Revenue Circle Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amit Shyamnani S/o Late Parmanand Shyamnani Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bodri, Revenue Circle Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer/ Magistrate Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The President, Nagar Panchayat Bodri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 01.05.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners against the impugned order dated INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.05.05 15:11:21 +0530 2 07.01.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1359 of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner- Parmanand Shyamnani was dismissed. 2 During pendency of writ petition, the original petitioner- Parmanand Shyamnani died on 13.12.2021 and therefore the present writ appeal is being prosecuted by the Legal Heirs of original petitioner- Parmanand Shyamnani. 3 Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition as well as writ appeal are that the original petitioner was refugee. He settled in Chakarbhata Camp, Tehsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur on a land bearing Khasra No.71/9, measuring 336 sq.ft., which was extended to 714 sq.ft. regarding which there is entry in the revenue records, however, he was paying taxes time to time and as such perfected title over the land in his possession over more than 30 years. Without any notice and the order of any authority it is alleged that his shop was demolished on 10.07.2014. They submitted before the Single Judge that the action of respondents was selective as construction of the petitioner alone was demolished and other encroachers of same locality were spared and as such this act of the respondents is discriminatory and in violation of the fundamental right available to the petitioner. 4 The respondent/State opposes the submissions and submits that the original petitioner was encroacher upon the Government land. He constructed a shop by encroaching upon the Government land 3 which was the road to Airport from Chakarbhata. The authorities took a decision to remove encroachment on the Airport road for which notices were issued to encroachers on 20.05.2014 by the respondent No.2, however, the petitioner neither accepted notice nor removed the encroachment, therefore, the action of removal of encroachment was taken by the State vide order dated 05.06.2014 after affording proper opportunity of being heard. Further, the petitioner was resettled by the respondent authorities by allotting suitable shops at Ward No.5 at Nagar Panchayat Bodri. Raising all these grounds, the counsel for respondents prayed for dismissal of writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner. 5 Learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as material produced before it, dismissed the petition vide order dated 07.01.2022 holding that no illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities in demolishing construction of the petitioners over government land which was the part of approach road to Airport from Chakarbhata. That apart, learned Single Judge also observed that the petitioner have already been resettled by allotting suitable shop and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The said order dated 07.01.2022 passed by Single Judge is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 6 Learned counsel for the writ appellants would submit that learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the 4 original petitioner. As per Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to remove encroachment. This aspect has not been considered by learned Single Judge. He would further submit that as per prevalent Rehabilitation Policy of the State, the original petitioner was also entitled for compensation or resettlement. He would also submit that though alternative shop is allotted to the petitioner at Ward No.5, Nagar Panchayat, Bodri, but the same is temporary allotment and as and when the present appeal is disposed of, he would be removed for want of any permanent allotment of shop. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the present appeal be allowed in the interest of justice. 7 On the other hand, the counsel for the State, opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the writ appellant and submits that after adverting the entire material produced in the writ petition, the Single Judge has passed its order which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 8 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9 The appellant took the court through paragraph 7 of the order of learned Single Judge dated 07.01.2022 wherein it is stated that encroachment made by the petitioner over the government land have been removed and the petitioner has been allotted another shop by the respondent authorities as per letter dated 09.07.2014, Annexure R/4 of the writ petition and therefore there is all 5 probability that the petitioner may be removed from temporary allotment also. Though the counsel for writ appellants would submit that appellants have been allotted shop temporarily and they would be removed from temporary allotment, however, from perusals of said letter dated 09.07.2014 it transpires that permanent allotment/resettlement would be made to the writ petitioner as per rules at a later stage. The only apprehension of the appellants is that after disposal of present writ appeal, they would be removed from temporary allotment of the shop, however, mere apprehension of the appellants appears to be only assumption on their own motion. If the appellants are not provided any permanent allotment as per letter dated 09.07.2014, they would be at liberty to take recourse of law. 10 With the aforesaid observations the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder