1 CGHC010156392023 2026:CGHC:31237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2216 of 2023 1 - Ramsharan Sinha S/o Raghuvar Dayal Sinha Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Gotatola, Tahsil And Police Station Mohla, District : Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue Mohla, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Mohla, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh 5 - Village Panchayat Gotatola, Through The Sarpanch, Tahsil And Police Station - Mohla, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For State/respondent : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent no. 5 to unauthorized construction over the said government land bearing khasra no. 56/2 situated at village Gotatola and remove it, so the petitioner can approach his own land. 10.2 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.25 10:33:35 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is seeking direction by this Court against the respondent no. 5 so as to restrain him from raising construction over the government land. The petitioner is having the land bearing khasra no. 125/6 rakba 0.170 hectare at village Gotatola, Tahsil Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). In front of the land of the petitioner, there is a khasra no. 56/2 which is a common land (nistari) reserved for the road, which is used by the petitioner as an encroacher for purpose of approaching the concerned land. The petitioner was directed by the respondent no. 4 to stop construction, whereas the respondent no. 5 was directed to remove encroachment within a period of 3 days. The petitioner himself removed the encroachment over the said government land, thereafter, the respondent no. 5 illegally encroached over the said land and raised construction of complex without taking any prior permission from the competent authority or State Government for the purpose of allotment of such land, whereas that particular land is reserved for the road (nistari) for local residents. The petitioner is not able to approach his own land which is besides the government land bearing khasra no. 56/2. Hence, this petition has been filed to restrain the respondent no. 5 from raising unauthorized construction over the said government land and remove it, so the petitioner can approach his own land. He submits that he has made complaint against the persons who have encroached the nistari land, however, no action has been taken. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has also encroached upon the government land and when he was directed to remove his encroachment, he in order to retaliate has filed complaint against the Gram Panchayat 3 alleging that the Gram Panchayat has encroached the nistari land. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396, directed all State Governments to formulate and implement schemes for the speedy eviction of illegal or unauthorized occupants from Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, Shamlat, Poramboke, and other village common lands. The Court mandated that such lands be restored to the Gram Sabha or Gram Panchayat for the common use and benefit of the villagers. The Court further directed that the eviction process should follow the principles of natural justice by issuing a show-cause notice and providing a brief opportunity of hearing to the occupants. It categorically held that long-standing unauthorized occupation, expenditure incurred on constructions, or political influence cannot be grounds for regularizing illegal possession. Regularization is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, such as where land has been leased under a valid Government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where the land is being used for a public utility such as a school, dispensary, or other public institution. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagpal Singh, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority wherein complaint of the petitioner regarding illegal encroachment of nistari land is pending, to consider and decide the said complaint within a reasonable period. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash