1 2026:CGHC:27445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3459 of 2026 1 - Arjun Sahu S/o Nandu Sahu Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Barbaspur, Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Barbaspur, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vedant Shadangi, Advocate. For State : Shri Anand Dadariya, Dy AG. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/07/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned notice dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Barbaspur Janpad Panchayat Basna District Mahasamund C.G. whereby petitioner has been directed to evict the alleged encroachment made by him on the land bearing Khasra No.130, admeasuring 18 sq. mtr. Patwari halka No.26 situated at AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.03 18:32:08 +0530 2 village Barbaspur, Tehsil Basna District Mahasamund C.G. with respect to construction of shed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a resident of Village: Barbaspur, Tehsil: Basna, District: Mahasamund (C.G.) and is residing peacefully with his family at Khasra no. 130/7 Patwari Halka No. 26, ad-measuring 144 sq mtr. Tehsil: Basna, District Mahsamund (C.G.) and for which the petitioner also possesses right (abadi patta) to construct and live peacefully. He submits that sons of the petitioner have also received amount under the scheme to construct House at the aforesaid location under the scheme Prime Minster House Scheme (Pradhan Mantri Avas Yojana) wherein their names have been shortlisted for grant of amount under the aforesaid scheme and installments have also been given to them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents lacks jurisdiction and is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has not been afforded proper opportunity of hearing. He submits that an undated impugned notice has been issued to him which was received by the petitioner on 01.07.2026 and the eviction was directed to be carried on 02.07.2026, which shows ill intent on the part of respondent authorities. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned notice was passed on 25.6.2026 which was duly communicated to the petitioner who is challenging the same on baseless grounds. 5. Yesterday i.e. on 02.07.2026, this case was mentioned before this Court and this Court had directed orally to learned State counsel to inform the concerned Tehsildar not to act upon the impugned notice. 3 6. Today, it has been informed that no eviction proceedings has been carried out. 7. In the case at hand, the petitioner was issued notice for removal of his encroachment, however, according to petitioner he has not filed any reply to the said notice. It is noteworthy to mention that upon receiving a notice of removal of encroachment, the petitioner is always at liberty to file reply to the same along with relevant documents demonstrating his objection to the eviction notice, which will be considered by the authorities and thereafter appropriate orders will be passed. 8. Considering this aspect of the matter ,the petitioner is directed to file reply to the impugned notice along with relevant documents by Monday i.e. 06th July, 2026 before the Tehsildar concerned who in turn is also directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving such reply. 9. Till 30 days from the date Tehsildar receives reply of the petitioner, the Tehsildar, Tehsil Basna District Mahasamund C.G. is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner such a dispossession form the property in question. 10.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Tehsildar is at liberty to pass appropriate order on its own merits. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash