1 CGHC010082322023 2026:CGHC:32887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1166 of 2023 1 - Ambika Prajapati S/o Shri Ram (Wrongly Mentioned in application as Rao) Murti Prajapati Aged About 50 Years R/o Shop No. 19, IDSMT Yojna Complex, Ghantaghar, Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Ram Murti Prajapati S/o Late Sri Vishwanath Prajapti Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Kharmora (Korba) Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Added As Per Order Dated 30-09-2019) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Dipak Chouhan S/o Late Sri Nanka Prasad Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 178, Ram Nagar, J.P. Colony, S E C L, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Sandip Chouhan S/o Late Sri Nanka Prasad Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 178, Ram Nagar, J.P. Colony, S E C L, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Nisha Chouhan D/o Late Sri Nanka Prasad Aged About 20 Years R/o House No. 178, Ram Nagar, J.P. Colony, S E C L, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Commissioner Nagar Nigam Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Added As Per Order Dated 30-09-2019) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.31 18:02:17 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer, Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate Mr. SS Masih, Advocate and Mr. Dileshwar Patel, Advocate S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : 10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records with regards to the petitioner's case in which the order impugned is passed. 10.2 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 against the petitioner and quash/set aside order dated 02.11.2022, 16.02.2023 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure P/2). 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire proceedings initiated by the SDO(R), Korba under the Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adiniyam, 1974 (in short, the Adhiniyam, 1974”) are non-est in the eye of law, as the concerned SDO lacks the power and authority to initiate 3 proceedings under the Act. Despite this lack of jurisdiction, the proceedings were initiated and currently remain pending for consideration. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the entire proceedings initiated by the concerned SDO(R). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that although the SDO initially (in the year 2018) did not possess the power and authority under the Adhiniyam, 1974, a Gazette Notification dated 9.6.2025 was subsequently issued empowering the concerned SDO (R) to initiate proceedings. He submits that after coming into force of the Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2025, the SDO(R) is now vested with the requisite jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1974 : Appointment of competent authority. The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) appoint such person being an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector as competent authority for the purposes of this Act; and (b) define the local limits within which, or the categories of public premises in respect of which, the competent authority shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on competent authority by or under this Act. 4 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1974, wherein the power to initiate proceedings is vested in an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector, this Court is of the view that the concerned SDO did not have jurisdiction and authority to initiate the proceedings at the relevant time. Although the SDO(R) has been conferred such authority under the Amended Act, 2025, the said amendment is prospective in nature. Therefore, the proceedings previously initiated by the SDO under the Adhiniyam, 1974 are not in accordance with law and without jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the entire proceedings initiated by the concerned SDO(R) under the Adhiniyam, 1974 are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the Respondent-State to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Acts and Rules. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is Allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay