1 2026:CGHC:19254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1907 of 2026 Ramprasad Rahi S/o Kapil Rahi Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Misda, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disas- ter Management Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Janjgir, Canal Sub-Division No. 4, Birra, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6 - The Naib Tahsildar Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Siyaram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Misda, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 27.04.2026 1 By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the impugned demolition order dated 06.04.2026 issued by YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.28 10:23:39 +0530 2 respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment over land bearing Khasra No. 64/1/kha, admeasuring 1.214 hectares, situated at Village Misda, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa, within a period of 7 days, failing which coercive action including removal of the petitioner has been threatened. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned notice/order dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Misda, Tehsil Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), and is in peaceful possession of the subject land bearing Khasra No. 64/1/kha, admeasuring total area 1.214 hectares, wherein the petitioner has constructed a small residential house. It is submitted that the petitioner has been residing along with his family for the last 30–40 years without any disturbance or objection, and similarly situated occupants are also in possession of adjoining Government land with constructed houses. 3 3 It is further submitted that the impugned action has been initiated at the instance of respondent No. 7, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, by making false and motivated allegations regarding alleged encroachment. Learned counsel submits that though earlier proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondent No. 7 and challenged up to this Court, no final adjudication on title or lawful possession has been made against the petitioner, and the matter is still under consideration in appeal/relevant proceedings. It is thus contended that the impugned demolition order dated 06.04.2026 has been passed in a mechanical manner, without proper consideration of the petitioner’s long- standing possession and without due opportunity of hearing, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that vide order dated 07.04.2026, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has been duly affirmed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division. It is thus contended that the impugned notice dated 06.04.2026 has been issued strictly in consequence of the aforesaid appellate order, and therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the action of the respondents. It is further submitted that once the revenue appellate authority has confirmed the finding with regard to alleged illegal occupation/encroachment, there remains no scope for interference by this Court in the present proceedings. It is contended that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner dated 07.04.2026, it 4 is always open to him to challenge the same by availing appropriate remedy as available under law, in accordance with the settled legal principles. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6 Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer has already been affirmed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, it is observed that the validity and correctness of the appellate order cannot be examined in the present writ petition in absence of a direct challenge thereto in appropriate proceedings. 7 Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner is at liberty to assail the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, before the competent forum in accordance with law. 8 With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 9 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh