1 2026:CGHC:26656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3224 of 2026 1 - Sarfaraj Anwar S/o Shri Sabir Ansari Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 54, Ward No 6 Vill- Ramchandrapur, Rmanujganj Dist- Balrampur, - Rmanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Gram Panchayat Chumra Janpad Panchayat, Ramchadrapur Dist. - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Nayab Tahsildar, Ramchandrapur, Dist - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 30/06/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the eviction warrant dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, C.G. whereby, petitioner has been directed to vacate his encroachment allegedly made on the land bearing Khasra No.289, 17, 146/1, 147 situated at village Ramchandrapur. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.01 10:22:47 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his family members are residing over the subject land situated at Village Ramchandrapur bearing Khasra Nos. 289, 17, 146/1 and 147 since the time of his forefathers and are in settled possession thereof for the last three generations. He submits that the petitioner and his family have constructed their residential dwelling over the said land and are dependent upon the same for their shelter and livelihood. He submits that the Gram Panchayat/Local Authority has issued a No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner and his family members have been residing and possessing the subject land for the last three generations. The petitioner is also having a valid electricity connection installed in the name of his brother at the disputed premises and is regularly paying electricity charges. The electricity bills clearly establishes long, continuous and peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject property. On 03.06.2025 the respondent authorities issued a Bedakhli Warrant directing the petitioner to remove his possession from the land bearing Khasra Nos. 289, 17, 146/1 and 147 within seven days. He submits that no effective opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before initiating the impugned action. Further, no reasoned or speaking order forming the basis of the impugned action was supplied to the petitioner. He submits that the respondents have ignored the No Objection Certificate issued by local authorities as well as the electricity bills showing continuous 3 possession and residence of the petitioner. The impugned action is highly arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner apprehends forcible dispossession at any point of time pursuant to the impugned warrant. 3. Learned State counsel submits that in the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that prior to issuance of impugned eviction warrant, notice had already been issued to the petitioner. Hence opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. 4. The impugned eviction warrant has been issued on 03.06.2025, however, according to counsel for the petitioner no action in pursuance of the impugned eviction warrant has been taken by the respondent authorities. 5. At this stage, it is not in dispute that although the impugned eviction warrant was issued on 03.06.2025, no coercive action has yet been taken by the respondent authorities pursuant thereto. Thus, the apprehended cause of action, as projected by the petitioner, has not crystallized into an executable action warranting interference by this Court. 6. Further, impugned eviction warrant was issued on 03.06.2025, whereas the present writ petition has been instituted only in June, 2026, i.e., after a lapse of about one year. Significantly, during the said intervening period, no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that any coercive action has been taken by the 4 respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned warrant or that the petitioner has suffered any actual dispossession. 7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that no live cause of action presently survives for adjudication. Mere apprehension of dispossession, particularly after approaching this Court nearly one year after issuance of the impugned warrant and in the absence of any subsequent action on the part of the respondents, does not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the present writ petition is disposed of as being premature. 9. However, in case any exigency arises, the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition afresh. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash