1 CGHC010200482023 2026:CGHC:33474 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2921 of 2023 Panch Ram Gandle S/o Sudan Satnami Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Podi(S), At Present Tahsil Bodri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vijay Shankar Bande Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Village Podi(S), At Present Tahsil - Bodri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Podi (S) At Present Tahsil - Bodri, District : Bilaspur, Chha ttisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pranay Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 03.08.2026 1 By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the notice dated 18.05.2023 and the subsequent notice directing him to vacate the land in question, issued by YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.03 18:03:10 +0530 2 respondent Nos.3 and 4, whereby the petitioner has been threatened with dispossession from the land bearing Khasra No.1/1, admeasuring 0.65 acre, situated at Village Podi (S), Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, allegedly with the aid of police force, without following the due procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘CGLRC’). The petitioner also seeks consequential protection against his alleged forcible dispossession with the following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the notice dated 18.05.2023 issued by the respondent no. 3 & 4. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2 Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the land in question, locally known as "Sudan Dabhra", was allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat, Village Podi (S), through a resolution dated 25.08.1995, for the purpose of plantation of trees. It is pleaded that ever since such allotment, the petitioner has remained in 3 peaceful possession of the land and has planted and maintained trees thereon. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4, namely the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, issued notices dated 18.05.2023 and thereafter directing him to vacate the land within the stipulated period, failing which he would be dispossessed with the assistance of the police. The petitioner asserts that the respondents have no authority to evict him in such manner and that, if at all any proceedings were required, the same could only be undertaken by the competent revenue authorities in accordance with law, particularly under Section 248 of the CGLRC. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been preferred. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notices have been issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Podi, who are not the competent authorities under law to initiate proceedings for eviction from Government revenue land. It is contended that the power to remove encroachment from Government land vests exclusively with the competent revenue authorities under the provisions of the CGLRC, and therefore, the impugned notices are wholly without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the Gram Panchayat itself had, by resolution dated 25.08.1995, permitted the petitioner to undertake plantation over the land in question and, pursuant thereto, the petitioner has remained in peaceful possession thereof for more than three decades. It is argued that, having granted such permission, the 4 Gram Panchayat cannot now seek to dispossess the petitioner by issuing eviction notices, particularly without following the procedure established by law. 4 Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the land in question is admittedly Government revenue land. It is contended that though the Gram Panchayat may, in appropriate circumstances, take steps for protection of public land and bring instances of encroachment to the notice of the competent revenue authorities, the ultimate action for removal of encroachment is required to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the CGLRC by the competent revenue authority. 5 Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the land in question has been earmarked for construction of a Primary Health Centre in accordance with the policy of the State Government and the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the petitioner was never allotted the land and was merely granted permission to undertake plantation thereon. Such permission, according to him, did not create any legal right, title or interest in favour of the petitioner nor did it authorize him to continue in possession indefinitely. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any vested right over the land merely on the basis of the resolution dated 25.08.1995. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 7 At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the petitioner has challenged the notices issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat on the ground that they are wholly without jurisdiction. Simultaneously, however, the petitioner seeks to derive his right of possession from the very resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 25.08.1995. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. If the Gram Panchayat had no authority in law to deal with the Government revenue land, the petitioner cannot claim any enforceable right merely on the strength of the said resolution. 8 The record further reveals that the land in question is Government revenue land and has been earmarked for construction of a Primary Health Centre. Therefore, the resolution dated 25.08.1995, whereby permission was allegedly granted to the petitioner for plantation over the said land, cannot confer any legal or proprietary right upon the petitioner nor can it defeat the rights of the State over its revenue land. 9 Be that as it may, it is equally well settled that in respect of Government revenue land, the Gram Panchayat is not vested with the authority to directly evict an encroacher by issuing notices of dispossession. The statutory scheme contemplates that, if any encroachment over Government revenue land is noticed, the Gram Panchayat may bring the same to the notice of the competent revenue authority by making a recommendation in 6 accordance with the provisions of Section 60 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, whereafter the competent revenue authority is required to initiate proceedings under the relevant provisions of the CGLRC. The Gram Panchayat, by itself, has no jurisdiction to direct eviction or threaten dispossession through police force. 10 In the present case, the impugned notices have been issued directly by respondent Nos.3 and 4 directing the petitioner to vacate the land, failing which he would be dispossessed with police assistance. Such action is clearly dehors the statutory procedure and beyond the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. Merely because a recommendation may have been made to the competent revenue authority would not empower the Gram Panchayat to independently issue eviction notices. 11 During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the Gram Panchayat had already forwarded a recommendation to the competent Tahsildar for removal of encroachment and, since no action had been taken thereon, the impugned notices came to be issued. Even if such submission is accepted, the same cannot validate an action which is otherwise beyond the statutory competence of the Gram Panchayat. 12 Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 18.05.2023 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby quashed. However, this Court 7 also clarifies that the resolution dated 25.08.1995, relied upon by the petitioner, cannot be construed as conferring any legal right to occupy Government revenue land. The said resolution, having been passed by an authority not competent to allot or authorize occupation of Government revenue land, cannot create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner. 13 Since the land in question is admittedly Government revenue land, it shall be open to the competent revenue authority to proceed in accordance with law. The Tahsildar, Bilha, District Bilaspur shall consider the recommendation/application submitted by the Gram Panchayat under Section 60 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the CGLRC, afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14 Till expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days, or till the competent authority passes an order, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notices. It is, however, made clear that this protection shall not preclude the competent revenue authority from proceeding against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. 15 It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim over disputed land. 8 16 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh