1 2026:CGHC:25553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2197 of 2021 1 - Gopal Lal Gahlot (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 13-04- 2026 1.1 - Shambhu Singh Gahlot S/o Late Shri Gopal Lal Gahlot Aged About 50 Years R/o Kohaka Minor East, Nandani Road, Ward No. 37, Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Ramu Singh Gahlot S/o Late Shri Gopal Lal Gahlot Aged About 47 Years Permanent R/o Kohaka Minor East, Nandani Road, Ward No. 37, Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi, Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Durg Office Of Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Zone Commissioner Shivaji Nagar, Zone - Iv, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 & 4: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 22/06 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the entire case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction thereby, quashing and setting-aside the impugned order dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction thereby, restraining the Respondent Corporation from demolishing any part and interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner, over the property in question. 10.4 That any other order which the Hon’ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice and equity may kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land situated at Kohka Minor East, Nandini Road, Ward No. 37, Bhilai, District – Durg admeasuring 2940 sq. feet, 120 sq. feet and 770 sq. feet. He contended that the land of the petitioner was affected due to construction of canal road. Earlier, a notice was issued dated 09.03.2020 (Annexure P/6) to the petitioner only mentioning to vacate the extra government land possessed by him, as it is affecting the construction of road. There is no mention in the letter dated 09.03.2020 (Annexure P/6) that the petitioner in any manner, is in encroachment of the government land. 3. He further contended thereafter, another notice was issued dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure P/8) mentioning that the petitioner has raised construction in contravention of the building completion certificate granted to him and directing the petitioner to submit the relevant documents. Respondent authorities have again issued last notice dated 20.01.2021 3 mentioning construction is more than the area mentioned in building completion certificate. Again notice dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) was issued mentioning that the petitioner is in possession of more land than what is allotted to him, meaning thereby, that the petitioner had been shown to be an encroacher in some portion of the government land. He submits that the respondent authorities have not conducted any demarcation through the revenue officials to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is in encroachment of the government land and therefore, the notice dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) be quashed/set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 4 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that in reply filed by the Respondents No. 2 & 4/Corporation has enclosed the Spot Inspection Report prepared by the team of employees/officials of the Municipal Corporation. He contended that at the time of preparation of Spot Inspection Report, as many as 6 persons/officials were present. This Spot Inspection Report is not put to challenge by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 3/State would submit that the dispute is between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation, as the Municipal Corporation has issued impugned notice dated 26.04.2021 to the petitioner and further, the Spot Inspection Report has been prepared by the officials of the Municipal Corporation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Perusal of the show-cause notice enclosed along with the writ petition would show that in the first show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, there is no mention that the petitioner in any manner has encroached the government land. In the second show-cause notice, the respondent 4 Municipal Corporation has mentioned that the petitioner has raised construction contrary to the building permission. Further, there is no mention that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land. In the impugned notice dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P/1), the respondent Municipal Corporation has mentioned that the petitioner is in possession of the land more than what has been allotted to him. 8. Admittedly, to identify the boundaries of the land allotted to the petitioner or whether, petitioner is also in possession of the government land along with the land allotted to him, can be ascertained only by way of demarcation to be conducted by the revenue officials. In the case at hand, the respondent Municipal Corporation has not made any pleadings in the reply to the writ petition that the Municipal Corporation has requested the government authorities to get the land possessed by the petitioner, demarcate through the officials of the Revenue Department of the State Government. In absence of the demarcation of the land possessed by the petitioner by revenue officials, it cannot be ascertained as to whether petitioner is in encroachment of government land, as such notice is not sustainable. Accordingly, in absence of the demarcation proceedings, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned notice dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable and accordingly, it is quashed. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when there is a boundary dispute as is reflecting from the impugned notice dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P/1), I am of the view that the dispute as raised in the writ petition can be resolved if the direction is issued to the State Government to constitute a team of the revenue officials to get the land demarcate, issuing notice to the petitioner to be present on the date fixed by the authorities for demarcation. 10.The Respondents No. 2 & 4 is directed to submit an application/letter before the Respondent No. 2 to constitute a team of revenue officials of 5 the Revenue Department to get the land subject matter of writ petition situated at Kohka Minor East, Nandini Road, Ward No. 37, Bhilai, District – Durg which is forming part of notice dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) for demarcation. In the event Respondents No. 2 to 4 submit application for demarcation, Respondents No. 2 shall constitute a team of revenue officials including Halka Patwari, Revenue Inspector and Naib Tehsildar expeditiously. The team so constituted by the Respondents No. 2 shall conduct the demarcation of the land subject matter of notice without any further delay following procedure of demarcation as provided under the Land Revenue Code, 1959. 11.Let this exercise be completed within a period of 04 months fixing the date and time and further, the petitioner shall also be noticed for making his presence at the time of conducting demarcation proceedings. Petitioner is directed to co-operate in the proceeding. It is also directed that till demarcation proceeding is completed and the demarcation report is submitted, no adverse action shall be taken against the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY