1 2026:CGHC:20804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2104 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sadhana Rajput W/o Manoj Rajput Aged About 41 Years Resident Of Ward No. 16, House No. 241, Village Dhiri, Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon, 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) : Ms. Niranju Tigga, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the notice dated 20.03.2026, 09.06.2025 and 02.05.2025 and may kindly RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 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 2.5 dismal; that on various dates, namely 02.05.2025, 09.06.2025, and 20.03.2026, the newly elected Sarpanch issued notices alleging that the petitioner has made illegal construction and declaring her to be an encroacher; that in the said notices, it has been vaguely stated that the land is required for construction of a mini stadium/playground, however, no specific details regarding the area, authority, or permission for such construction have been disclosed; that it is further submitted that there are around 60 houses situated on the said land, including that of the petitioner, yet the impugned notices have been selectively issued only against the petitioner and a few others; that the petitioner has duly submitted replies to the said notices, including reply dated 31.03.2026, requesting that no coercive action be taken against 3 her and her family; that the petitioner has also issued a legal notice through her counsel asserting her long-standing possession over the said land and seeking allotment of government patta, however, no action has been taken by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 on the said application; that the petitioner is regularly paying Gram Panchayat taxes, electricity bills, and holds a BPL card, which evidences her continuous residence and possession over the property for several years; and that despite these circumstances, the respondent authorities are attempting to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, thereby compelling her to approach this Court. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notices dated 20.03.2026, 9.6.2025 and 2.5.2025 are arbitrary, illegal and has been issued without any authority of law or proper procedure, as required under the relevant statutory provisions; it is contended that the petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the land for several years and has been recognized by the Gram Panchayat through payment of taxes and other official documents, and therefore cannot be treated as an encroacher in a summary manner; it is further submitted that the action of the respondent No. 1 is discriminatory, as similarly situated persons occupying the same land have not been proceeded against, and the notice has been issued only due to personal rivalry; it is also urged that there is no authentic or sanctioned plan for construction of any mini 4 stadium or playground, and the vague reference in the notice cannot justify eviction; reliance is placed on Article 300A of the Constitution of India to submit that no person can be deprived of his/her property save by authority of law, and therefore, any attempt to dispossess the petitioner without following due process is unconstitutional; it is further contended that the respondent authorities are acting in an arbitrary and high-handed manner, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, and hence the impugned action deserves to be set aside and appropriate protection be granted to the petitioner. 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 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, the concerned Gram Panchayat, Dhiri, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity 5 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