1 2026:CGHC:19771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2039 of 2026 1 - Smt. Motim Sahu W/o Vijay Sahu Aged About 36 Years Residant Of Village Dhiri, Police Station Somni Tehdil And District Rajnangaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gram Panchayat Dhiri Through Sarpanch, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash/ set aside the notice dated 20.03.2026 and may kindly restrained the respondent No. 1 not to demolished the house of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant government patta and also further accommodation to the petitioner before vacating the house, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the petitioner is a resident of Village Dhiri, Police Station Somni, Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon, and has been residing since the year 2016 in a house constructed over land bearing Khasra No. 1/1 admeasuring approximately 0.03 dismal; that on 20.03.2026, the newly elected Sarpanch issued a notice alleging that the petitioner has made illegal construction and declared her to be an encroacher; that the said notice vaguely states that the land is required for construction of a mini stadium/playground, however, no specific details regarding the area, authority, or sanction have been mentioned; that there are about 60 houses situated over the same land, but the impugned notice has been selectively issued only against the petitioner and a few others, and a purported panchanama dated 18.06.2025 has been prepared that the petitioner has already 3 submitted a reply to the notice dated 20.03.2026 seeking protection against any coercive action; that the petitioner had earlier also sent a legal notice dated 17.02.2026 requesting regularization and grant of patta, stating that her family has been residing on the land for decades, but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities that the petitioner is regularly paying Gram Panchayat taxes, electricity bills, and is in possession of a BPL card and voter ID in the family’s name, which establishes continuous possession that the petitioner has also submitted representations dated 01.07.2025 seeking allotment/regularization of the land, which are still pending and that despite this, the respondent authorities are attempting to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, thereby compelling her to file the present petition. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 20.03.2026 is arbitrary, illegal, and has been issued without jurisdiction or adherence to due procedure, as required under law; it is contended that the petitioner has been in peaceful and continuous possession of the land for several years and her possession is corroborated by official documents such as tax receipts, electricity bills, and identity records, and therefore she cannot be summarily treated as an encroacher; it is further submitted that the action of the respondent No. 1 is discriminatory and actuated by personal rivalry, as similarly situated persons occupying larger portions of the same land have not been 4 proceeded against; it is also urged that there is no valid or sanctioned plan for construction of any mini stadium or playground, and the vague assertion in the notice cannot justify eviction; it is contended that the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner’s pending applications for regularization and grant of patta, and are instead attempting to forcibly dispossess her; reliance is placed on Article 300A of the Constitution of India to submit that no person can be deprived of property save by authority of law, and any such action without due process is unconstitutional; it is thus prayed that the impugned notice be quashed and appropriate protection be granted to the petitioner against illegal dispossession. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the provisions of law for redressal of his grievance, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and does not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account that only a notice for removal of encroachment has been issued, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Gram Panchayat, Dhiri, and submit an appropriate reply to the said notice; upon such reply being filed, 5 the concerned Gram Panchayat, Dhiri, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing, and shall pass a reasoned order addressing the grievance of the petitioner. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat