1 2026:CGHC:19772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2043 of 2026 1 - Smt. Suneti Netam Wife Of Asharam Netam Aged About 28 Years Rsidant Of House No.1, Ward No.1,dhiri 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) : 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, 09.06.2025 and 15.04.2025 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 2.5 dismal; that on various dates, namely 15.04.2025, 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, sanction, or authority for such construction have been mentioned; that there are approximately 60 houses situated over the same land, including that of the petitioner, yet the notices have been selectively issued only against the petitioner and a few 3 others, and a purported panchanama dated 18.06.2025 has been prepare that the petitioner has duly replied to the said notices and requested that no coercive action be taken against her and her family that the petitioner has also issued a legal notice through counsel seeking regularization and grant of government patta, stating that she and her ancestors have been residing on the land for several decades, but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities; that the petitioner is regularly paying Gram Panchayat taxes, electricity bills, and holds a BPL card and voter ID, which evidences continuous possession that the petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 30.06.2025 seeking allotment/regularization of the land, which remains pending and that despite the pendency of such representations, the respondent authorities are attempting to forcibly dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, thereby compelling her to approach this Hon’ble Court. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notices dated 15.04.2025, 09.06.2025, and 20.03.2026 are arbitrary, illegal, and issued without jurisdiction or adherence to the procedure prescribed under law; it is contended that the petitioner has been in peaceful and continuous possession of the land for several years, which is substantiated by official records such as tax receipts, electricity bills, and identity documents, and therefore she cannot be summarily declared an encroacher; it is further submitted that the action of the respondent No. 1 is 4 discriminatory and motivated by personal rivalry, as similarly situated persons occupying larger portions of the same land have not been 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 assertions in the notices cannot justify eviction; it is contended that the respondent authorities have failed to consider the petitioner’s pending applications for regularization and grant of patta, and are instead attempting to dispossess her in a high-handed manner; reliance is placed on Article 300A of the Constitution of India to submit that no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law, and any such action without due process is unconstitutional; it is therefore prayed that the impugned notices 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 5 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 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