1 2026:CGHC:22096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2404 of 2026 1 - Rajesh Gupta S/o Rameshwar Prasad Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o Thana Road, Mayapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sushma Gupta W/o Rajesh Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Thana Road, Mayapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (R) 3 - The Collector Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Tehsildar Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Patwari Gram Fundurdihari, P.H.No. 16, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.12 10:40:35 +0530 2 7 - Deepak Rai S/o Late Shri Balai Krishna Rai R/o Village Fundurdihari, Bangali Para, Turani, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 and 3 to 6 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Parwati Suryawanshi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 11.05.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the ejection notice dated 06.05.2026 issued by respondent No.5/Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), received on 08.05.2026, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate the alleged encroached land admeasuring 45 dismil within three days, failing which forcible eviction and confiscation of materials situated thereon have been threatened, allegedly without following due procedure of law. The petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of revenue case no. 202506020700169/A-68/2024-2025 for proper adjudication of the instant petition, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the notice of 3 ejection notice dated 06/05/2026 passed by the respondent no. 5/Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to eject the petitioners from their land. 10.4 Any other relief may also be granted by this Hon'ble court in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned ejection notice dated 06.05.2026 issued by respondent No.5/Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law governing eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘CGLRC’). It is submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers and lawful owners in possession of the subject lands bearing Khasra Nos. 471/2, 471/12, 471/3, 471/4, 471/29 and 136/2 admeasuring total 1.414 hectares, acquired through registered sale deeds and registered lease deeds. Over the said lands, the petitioners have established and constructed “Kamoda Vihar Resort” after obtaining due permissions, sanctioned map and layout approvals from the competent authorities including the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur and the Office of Town and Country Planning, Ambikapur. The resort has been in existence for the last several years and the petitioners have been enjoying peaceful possession 4 thereof without any dispute. However, solely on the basis of a complaint preferred by respondent No.7 alleging encroachment over Government land, the respondent authorities initiated proceedings under Sections 248 and 250 of the CGLRC in a completely mechanical and predetermined manner. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the entire proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities stand vitiated on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is argued that the Patwari and Revenue Inspector allegedly conducted demarcation/site inspection and prepared Panchnama dated 29.04.2025 without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners and behind their back. The Panchnama itself demonstrates the arbitrary manner in which the proceedings were carried out, inasmuch as the revenue officials categorically observed that original Khasra No.471 had not been properly subdivided in the revenue map and, therefore, accurate identification and measurement of possession could not be undertaken unless the parent khasra was first properly divided and measured. The Panchnama further records that no Government land could clearly be traced at the spot. Despite such inconclusive findings, the authorities, in a wholly arbitrary fashion, presumed alleged encroachment of 45 dismils by the petitioners. It is submitted that the allegation recorded in the Panchnama that the petitioners refused to receive notice or sign the proceedings is entirely false 5 and fabricated, as no notice whatsoever was ever served upon them before conducting the alleged demarcation proceedings. 4. It is further contended that even the subsequent report submitted by the Tehsildar to the Sub-Divisional Officer merely recorded a “possibility” of encroachment by the petitioners and was not based upon any conclusive demarcation or scientific measurement. Nevertheless, during the pendency of Revenue Case No.202506020700169/A-68/2024-2025, once the petitioners came to know about the proceedings, they immediately appeared before the authority concerned and sought opportunity of hearing. However, despite their appearance, the Tehsildar did not effectively proceed with the matter on the dates fixed and abruptly reserved the matter for passing of order on 30.10.2025. Though the petitioners specifically sought time and opportunity for advancing final arguments, the same was denied and the Tehsildar proceeded to pass the order dated 30.10.2025 declaring the petitioners to be encroachers over Government land bearing Khasra No.471/1 admeasuring 45 dismils. According to learned counsel, the said order itself has been passed in violation of audi alteram partem and without any legally sustainable material on record. 5. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioners thereafter applied for certified copies of the order dated 30.10.2025 and the entire proceedings, however, the respondent authorities 6 deliberately avoided supplying the same. In spite of non-supply of certified copies and without affording any further opportunity, respondent No.5 issued the impugned ejection notice dated 06.05.2026 directing the petitioners to vacate the alleged encroached land within an extremely unreasonable period of three days, failing which forcible eviction and confiscation of materials have been threatened. It is submitted that the impugned notice has been issued without proper demarcation, without identification of the alleged encroached portion, without affording due opportunity of hearing and solely on the basis of an inconclusive Panchnama and speculative report. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that upon receipt of complaint regarding encroachment over Government land bearing Khasra No.471/1, the competent revenue authorities conducted spot inspection and found that the petitioners had encroached upon Government land by raising boundary wall and construction for commercial purposes. It is submitted that, accordingly, proceedings under Section 250 of the CGLRC were initiated against the petitioners and, after following due procedure, the competent authority passed the final order dated 30.10.2025 directing removal of encroachment from the Government land. 7 7. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact that they have not challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.10.2025 before any appropriate forum and, therefore, the said order has attained finality. It is argued that once the order of eviction/removal of encroachment has attained finality, the consequential ejection notice dated 06.05.2026 issued by the Tahsildar cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. He further submits that sufficient opportunity had already been granted to the petitioners during the course of proceedings and even prior notices had been issued directing them to remove the unauthorized construction and encroachment from the Government land, however, the petitioners failed to comply with the same. 8. It is further contended by learned State counsel that the impugned notice has been issued strictly in furtherance of implementation of the order passed by the competent revenue authority and the respondents are well within their jurisdiction to remove encroachment from Government land. According to him, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when disputed questions relating to demarcation and possession are involved and when the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy available under the provisions of the CGLRC. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 8 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available with the writ petition. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court finds that the principal grievance raised by the petitioners pertains to the consequential ejection notice dated 06.05.2026 issued pursuant to the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the competent revenue authority in proceedings initiated under Section 250 of the CGLRC. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 30.10.2025, whereby the petitioners have been held to be encroachers over Government land and directions for removal of encroachment have been issued, has not yet been assailed by the petitioners before the competent appellate authority in accordance with law. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that once a final order has already been passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the CGLRC, the proper remedy available to the petitioners would be to challenge the said order before the competent appellate forum by availing the statutory remedy available under the Code. At the same time, considering the specific stand taken by the petitioners that they were not supplied certified copy of the order dated 30.10.2025 and that they intend to assail the same before the competent authority along with all relevant documents and grounds available to them in law, this Court deems it appropriate to grant limited protection to the 9 petitioners so as to enable them to avail the statutory remedy effectively. 12. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to assail the order dated 30.10.2025 before the competent appellate authority in accordance with law within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with all relevant documents and applications, if any. Learned State counsel is directed to ensure that certified copy of the order dated 30.10.2025 along with relevant proceedings/documents, if applied for by the petitioners, be supplied to them forthwith so as to enable them to avail the statutory remedy without any further delay. 13. It is further directed that in the event the petitioners prefer an appeal within the aforesaid stipulated period, the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and shall pass an appropriate reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within a period of 20 days from the date of filing of such appeal. 14. It is made clear that though the demolition action stated to have already been undertaken by the respondents shall not be reopened at this stage, no further coercive steps pursuant to the impugned ejection notice dated 06.05.2026 or the order dated 10 30.10.2025 shall be taken against the petitioners till the appeal is decided by the competent authority. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh