1 2026:CGHC:27512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5 of 2021 1 - Sakha Ram S/o Sarha, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Jogidipa, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hari Ram S/o Chinta Ram, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Jogidipa, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Suresh Kumar S/o Rameshar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Jogidipa, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jogidipa, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.07.07 16:59:32 +0530 2 5 - Lata Lahre, W/o Maheshwar Lahre, Aged About 40 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jogidipa, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondents No.1 to 3. : Ms. Shailja Shukla, G.A. For Respondents No.4 & 5. : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 03/07/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of ‘CERTIORARI’ quashing the whole proceeding initiated by the Tahsildar and the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Pamgarh. 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were initially granted patta of the part of land bearing Khasra No. 52/1 situated at Village – Jogidipa, Tahsil Pamgarh under ‘Hareli- Saheli’ scheme of the State Government. Patta was issued under signature of the Governor to the petitioners. Petitioners were allotted different areas such as 2 acres to petitioner No.1 and 4 acres to petitioners No. 2 & 3 each respectively. He 3 contended that petitioners according to the scheme of the State Government have made plantation over the land. In the year 2020, some of the villagers have made objection/complaint against the petitioners stating that petitioners have also made some construction over the land granted on patta which are coming on the way of construction of Goutan and Higher Secondary School. Tahsildar has registered a case based on the complaint under Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (hereinafter refereed as ‘CGLRC’) and passed an order of eviction of the petitioners from the land observing that the petitioners are encroachers. The said finding of the Tahsildar is erroneous in view of the patta allotted to the petitioners by the State Government under the signature of Governor. He contended that once the petitioners are in possession of the land on the basis of patta issued in their favour by the State Government, they can not be said to be encroachers. He further submitted that if for some reason there is a compliant that any or some of the terms and conditions of the patta has been violated than it is of the concerned authority to draw proceedings and to pass appropriate orders after granting proper opportunity of hearing. In support of his contention he read over condition No.8 of the patta. 3. Counsel for the State opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners and would submit that the order of Sub Divisional Officer passed in appeal, challenged by the 4 petitioners before this Court in writ petition is further appealable under Section 44(2) of Land Revenue Code 1959 and hence the petition is not maintainable. She contended that the petitioners are having efficacious alternate remedy available under the law. 4. She contended that the Tahsildar after issuance of notice for appearance of the petitioners granting opportunity of hearing had passed the order and therefore, the pleadings made in the writ petition that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted is not sustainable. The order passed by the Tahsildar was upheld by Sub Divisional Officer following due procedure and therefore, it does not call for any interference. 5. Mr. Bareth, counsel for respondents No.4 & 5 also opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioners and would adopt the submission made by learned counsel for the State. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as objection raised by the counsel for the respondent- State with regard to maintainability of writ petition is concerned, this writ petition was filed on 23.12.2020. The writ petition came up for hearing for the first time on 12.01.2021. On the said date after hearing the counsel for the State, this Court has passed an order granting interim relief in favour of the petitioners and have also directed for issuance of notice to the other private respondents. From the interim order dated 12.01.2021, it is reflecting that objection with regard to maintainability of writ 5 petition has not been raised at that time. As of now, about more than 5 & ½ years have already lapsed pending writ petition before this Court. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am of the view that it will not be fair to the petitioners to relegate them to avail the remedy of appeal after lapse of more than 5 & ½ years and therefore, I am inclined to consider the case on merits. From the documents placed on record it is appearing that the petitioners have placed on record the copies of patta granted in their favour of the land with area mentioned therein. This patta was issued by the State Government under the signature of Governor. Grant of patta to the petitioners was not disputed by the counsel for the respondent-State and private respondents. 9. Perusal of condition No.8 of patta would shows that the patta issued under Section 239 of the CGLRC and if the conditions mentioned therein would found to be violated than the patta issued to be canceled subject to providing proper opportunity of hearing to the patta holders. 10. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the respondent-State in its reply that any proceedings is drawn by any of the authority for cancellation of patta granted to the petitioners. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it is prima facie appearing that the petitioners are in possession of the land under the patta granted to them. It is not the case of respondent-State that the 6 petitioners are found in possession of the excess land than what is allotted to them under patta. 11. The Tahsildar has passed the order under Section 248 of the ‘CGLRC’ which provides for penalty for unauthorizedly taking possession of land. In the facts of case where patta has been granted in favour of the petitioners and they are in possession of the land as mentioned therein, they could not be said to be in unauthorized possession of the land. 12. In the order, Tahsildar has recorded that petitioners were granted patta of the land for the purpose of plantation under ‘Hareli- Saheli’ scheme of State Government and have also recorded that the petitioners have made plantation of only 10 to 12 small plants and further that the same land was being proposed by the Panchayat for construction of Higher Secondary School. The Tahsildar failed to take into consideration that once land is allotted to any person by State Government under the patta issued by it, than, the proposal for use of the land by other can not be made even by the Panchayat unless and until the patta issued in favour of the person is cancelled or withdrawn. The Tahsildar has passed an order observing that the petitioners have violated the conditions 1 to 5, however, he escaped consideration of condition No.8 which mentions that if violation of conditions is found patta would be cancellable after granting proper opportunity of hearing. No proceeding for cancelling patta was initiated by any authority. The Sub Divisional Officer while 7 considering the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Tahsildar has also not taken into consideration the aforementioned aspects of the case as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 13. For the aforementioned discussions impugned order dated 21.12.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer and also the order passed by the Tahsildar is not sustainable, accordingly, the same are set aside. 14. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi