1 CGHC010242012026 2026:CGHC:27623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3360 of 2026 1 - Santosh Kuldeep S/o- Late Narayan Kuldeep, aged about 43 years, Caste- Gada, R/o- Village Sahaspur, Thana- Panduka, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariaband (C.G.). 2 - Premlal Kuldeep S/o- Late Narayan Kuldeep, aged about 41 years, Caste- Gada, R/o- Village Sahaspur, Thana- Panduka, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariaband (C.G.). ... Petitoners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management , Mantralaya, Mahanadi, Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector, Gariaband, District- Gariaband (C.G.). 3 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajim, District- Gariaband (C.G.). 4 - The Tahsildar, Rajim, District- Gariaband (C.G.). 5 - Gram Panchayat Sahaspur, Through Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District- Gariaband (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 6 - The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sahaspur, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District- Gariaband (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the present Petitioners from the Respondent authorities concerned for kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, and set aside and quash the impugned eviction notices both dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No. 5 and 6, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondents consider and decide the petitioners claim for grant of lease/regularization of the subject land in accordance with law within a time-bound period, taking into consideration their long-standing possession of more than 70-80 years. 10.4 Pass any other order under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned eviction notice dated 02.06.2026, issued by Respondent Nos. 5 3 and 6 purportedly under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. The Gram Panchayat has no statutory authority to order the eviction of the Petitioners from their permanent residential house and temple. The power to adjudicate disputes relating to alleged encroachment upon Government or Abadi land and to direct eviction vests exclusively in the competent Revenue Officer, namely the Tahsildar, under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. By issuing the impugned notice, the Gram Panchayat has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and has unlawfully usurped the powers vested in the Revenue Authorities. He further submits that the impugned notice has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were granted only three days' time without being afforded any meaningful or effective opportunity of hearing. No enquiry was conducted, no material was disclosed, and no finding was recorded regarding the nature, ownership, or legal status of the disputed land before initiating coercive action. Such action is arbitrary, unfair, and contrary to the settled principles governing administrative decision-making. He next submits that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest have been in peaceful, continuous, and settled possession of the disputed land for the last 70 to 80 years. During this period, they have constructed a permanent residential house, installed a borewell, developed a Badi (kitchen garden), and established a 4 temple. Their long-standing possession has never been disturbed through any lawful process. The sudden issuance of the impugned notice is actuated by mala fide considerations and political vendetta, particularly in retaliation for the complaint submitted by the Petitioners before the Collector on 18.05.2026. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular, particularly Clause 82, which ordinarily prohibits the execution of eviction or removal proceedings during the rainy season except in accordance with the prescribed conditions. The Court may take judicial notice of the prevailing monsoon season, and therefore the proposed eviction is in clear violation of the binding executive instructions governing such proceedings. He further contends that the petitioners are otherwise entitled to consideration for the grant of a 30-year lease under the welfare policies and regularization schemes of the State Government applicable to persons in long- standing possession of Abadi land. Instead of considering the petitioners' claim in accordance with law, the respondents have initiated arbitrary eviction proceedings with the effect of rendering the petitioners and their family homeless. It is further submitted that the impugned action is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned eviction notice deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the Respondents be restrained from taking any coercive 5 action against the petitioners except in accordance with the due process of law by the competent authority. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the writ petition and supports the impugned eviction notice, submitting that it has been issued in accordance with law in discharge of the statutory duty to remove unauthorized occupation over Government/Abadi land. He contends that the petitioners have failed to establish any lawful title, ownership, lease or other legally enforceable right over the disputed land, and that mere long and settled possession does not confer any right or title against the State. He next submits that the regularization or grant of lease cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and that no violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution is made out, as the respondents have acted within the scope of their statutory powers. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed, or in the alternative, the petitioners be relegated to submit their reply before the competent authority for consideration in accordance with law. 4. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners have assailed the eviction notice dated 02.06.2026. As on the date of hearing, i.e., 06.07.2026, more than one month has elapsed from the date of issuance of the said notice. It is also evident that the impugned communication is only a show-cause/eviction notice 6 and no final order has yet been passed by the concerned Gram Panchayat. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioners to submit their reply to the impugned notice before the concerned Gram Panchayat. On receipt of such reply, the concerned Gram Panchayat shall consider the same objectively and pass a reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 45 days thereafter. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, till date, no coercive action has been taken pursuant to the impugned notice. In view thereof, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for a period of 45 days from today or till a reasoned order is passed on their reply, whichever is earlier. It is further made clear that, in the event the concerned Gram Panchayat passes any final order, the petitioners shall avail the statutory alternative remedy available to them under law. They shall not invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court without first exhausting such alternative remedy, if so available, in accordance with law. 7. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju