1 CGHC010430782022 2026:CGHC:33375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 19 of 2023 Order Reserved on: 10.7.2026 Order Delivered on: 3.8.2026 • Santoshi Thakur D/o Basant Thakur, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 13, College Road, Kotsagar Para, Kota, P.O. - Kota, P. S. Kargiroad, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5. Sub Divisional Officer (R.), Kota, P. O. Kargiroad, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 6. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7. Jageshwari Goswami, Councilor Nagar Panchayat Kota, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 6 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writs/orders/directions to the respondents and declare that acts of C.M.O. Kota, Revenue Inspector Kota, Tahsildar, Patwari and Councilor are violative of article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writs/orders/directions in respect of suitable compensation and allotment of house for the residence of petitioner and her children. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writs/orders/directions for action and enquiry against the responsible officers. 3 (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writs/orders/directions to the state government to initiate immediate action in favour of petitioner and responsible officer within fixed time period. (v) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which seems just and fair in the eyes of law, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the State Government launched the "Krishna Kunj" plantation scheme with the object of developing green zones in all Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats by earmarking at least one acre of Government land for plantation of indigenous trees such as Peepal, Neem, Banyan and Kadam. Pursuant thereto, the land situated at Khasra No. 657/1 was identified for the said project. The petitioner claims that her mother, Smt. Bhuri Bai, who is residing separately, was issued a notice dated 18.08.2022 by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Kota, directing removal of the alleged encroachment, whereas no separate notice was issued to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that Smt. Bhuri Bai had been granted a lease (Patta) in respect of Khasra No. 665 on 07.05.2003, and that the petitioner, along with other family members, had constructed residential houses over land situated at Khasra Nos. 657/1 and 665, where they had been residing for a considerable period while regularly paying municipal taxes. 4 According to the petitioner, on 07.09.2022, during her absence, the respondent authorities, including the Chief Municipal Officer, Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and Patwari, demolished her house by using a JCB machine for implementation of the "Krishna Kunj" project, resulting in destruction of her household articles. It is further pleaded that despite submitting several representations and complaints before the competent authorities, no effective action was taken. The petitioner also sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and claims that the information supplied revealed that the notice had been issued only to her mother. She further asserts that she had applied for grant of patta and sought re-survey of the land but no action was taken thereon. Alleging that the demolition was carried out without following the due process of law and that she and her children have been rendered homeless, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in demolishing the petitioner's residential house is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no notice was ever served upon the petitioner nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to her before taking the coercive action. It is contended that even if the land was required for development of the "Krishna Kunj" project, the respondents were under a legal obligation to follow the due process of law before evicting the petitioner and demolishing her 5 house. It is further submitted that the impugned action has resulted in serious civil consequences, thereby infringing the petitioner's constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was entitled to consideration of her claim for grant of patta and regularisation of her occupation; however, instead of deciding her claim in accordance with law, the respondent authorities proceeded to demolish her house without following the prescribed procedure. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being a deserted woman earning her livelihood through manual labour, along with her children, has been rendered homeless and has suffered substantial loss of household articles, and is therefore entitled to compensation, rehabilitation and other appropriate reliefs from the State. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned action be declared illegal and appropriate directions be issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the writ petition is wholly devoid of merit. It is contended that the petitioner, along with her mother and other family members, had illegally encroached upon different portions of Government land, including Khasra No. 657/1, after the lawful allotment of Khasra No. 665 in favour of the petitioner's mother, Smt. Bhuri Bai. It is submitted that the petitioner has no right, title or interest over the encroached land and that the municipal tax receipts relied upon 6 by her do not confer any legal title or validate an unauthorized occupation. Learned State counsel further submits that prior to the removal of the encroachment, due notice was duly served upon the petitioner's mother on 18.08.2022, and despite sufficient opportunity, the encroachment was not removed, whereafter the authorities proceeded to remove the same strictly in accordance with law. It is further denied that any household articles were destroyed or that the petitioner was rendered homeless, as she was residing with her mother on the lawfully allotted land. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned action is legal, justified and in consonance with the prescribed procedure, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6, while opposing the writ petition, submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is contended that the petitioner, along with her mother and other family members, is an unauthorized encroacher over Government land and has no legal right, title or interest over the disputed property. Learned counsel submits that after the lawful allotment of Khasra No. 665 in favour of the petitioner's mother, the petitioner and her family illegally encroached upon different portions of Government land, including Khasra No. 657/1, by raising temporary structures. It is further submitted that before removal of the encroachment, due notices were issued under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, and 7 despite sufficient opportunity, the encroachment was not removed, whereafter it was demolished strictly in accordance with law. It is denied that any household articles were damaged or that the petitioner was rendered homeless. Learned counsel submits that the action was taken in larger public interest for establishment of "Krishna Kunj" after following the prescribed procedure, and therefore, the petitioner, being an encroacher, is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has admittedly occupied a portion of Government land bearing Khasra No. 657/1, admeasuring 1.00 acre out of the total area of 21.185 hectares, which stands duly recorded in the revenue records as Government land. The occupation of the said land by the petitioner is wholly unauthorized and constitutes an encroachment upon public property. The petitioner has failed to produce any document conferring any legal title, lease, licence, or other lawful authority in respect of the said land. Consequently, the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land cannot be recognized or protected in the eyes of law. 7. From a careful examination of the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents, it further emerges that the petitioner has already been allotted a separate parcel of Government land by the competent authority, upon which she has constructed a residential house and is 8 residing therein along with her daughters. Thus, the petitioner cannot be treated as a landless person or a person without shelter so as to invoke any equitable consideration from this Court. 8. It is further evident from the record that, prior to the removal of the encroachment, the petitioner was duly served with a notice dated 18.08.2022 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby she was directed to remove the unauthorized encroachment within a period of three days. Although the notice stipulated a period of three days, the respondent authorities, with a view to affording the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity, did not proceed with the demolition immediately upon the expiry of the said period. Instead, the authorities waited for a considerable period and ultimately removed the encroachment only on 07.09.2022. 9. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity before the impugned action was taken. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the encroachment was removed without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, particularly the well-established principle of audi alteram partem, is wholly misconceived, devoid of substance, and contrary to the record. The plea is liable to be rejected outright. 10. It is a settled principle of law that no person can claim any legal or equitable right over Government land merely on the basis of 9 unauthorized occupation. Encroachments upon public property are required to be removed in accordance with law so as to safeguard public interest and preserve Government land for the purposes for which it is intended. The authorities entrusted with the protection of public land are under a statutory obligation to remove such encroachments, and no leniency can ordinarily be shown in favour of encroachers, particularly when the due procedure prescribed under law has been duly followed. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3767, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the Construction is made in contravention of the Acts/Rules, it would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction. The following decisions are of relevance and hence cited herein below to drive home the point that unauthorized constructions must be dealt with, with an iron hand and not kid gloves.” 10 12. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applying the same to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner is nothing but an unauthorized encroacher over Government land. Significantly, the petitioner had already been granted another parcel of Government land on lease by the State Government, where she has constructed her residential house. Despite having been provided with such accommodation, the petitioner proceeded to make a further encroachment over another portion of Government land. Such unauthorized occupation cannot be protected by any stretch of imagination. 13. The record further reveals that the respondent authorities have scrupulously followed the procedure prescribed under law before removing the encroachment. Adequate notice was issued, reasonable time was granted to the petitioner, and the action was taken only thereafter. Thus, the impugned action is fully in consonance with the principles of natural justice and does not suffer from any procedural infirmity. 14. This Court is also of the considered opinion that there has been no infringement of the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 300-A or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has no lawful right, title, or interest over the encroached Government land, she cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to protect an illegal possession. Once the State Government has taken a policy decision to utilize the Government 11 land for public purposes, including plantation and environmental development, an encroacher has no enforceable legal right to question such action or to seek protection of his or her unauthorized occupation through a writ petition. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the present writ petition. The petitioner has failed to establish any legal or fundamental right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondent authorities is found to be lawful, justified, and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat