1 CGHC010117772023 2026:CGHC:34506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1734 of 2023 1 - Gopal Prasad Soni S/o. Late Shri Gokul Prasad Soni, Aged About 49 Years R/o. House No. 408, Ward No. 18, Near Mission Hospital, Champa, Tahsil Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Manager Masihi Hospital (Mission Hospital/christian Hospital) Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State :- Mr. Anway Tiwari, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :- Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 06.08.2026 1. By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2. 10.2 That, if the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper call the records pertaining to petitioner's case. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order which may be deed fit and proper in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Janjgir-Champa, is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to law. It is contended that the said authority has no statutory power or competence to issue such notice directing removal of the petitioner's possession. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any authority vested under the relevant provisions of law, the impugned notice is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is an encroacher upon Government land and has encroached upon the Nazul land. It is contended that the documents relied upon and filed by the petitioner himself indicate that the land bearing Khasra No. 1142/1 is recorded as Nazul land (Grass). It is further submitted that, as per the entries contained in the said documents, the petitioner’s name has been 3 mentioned in the encroachment column and he has been recorded as an encroacher over the said land. Therefore, the action taken by the authorities is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the house in question falls within the limits of the Municipal Council and, therefore, the notice has been issued to the petitioner for removal of the encroachment in accordance with law. It is contended that the petitioner is an encroacher over the Government land and has no lawful authority or right to question the said notice. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not even submitted any reply to the impugned notice and, therefore, in the absence of any explanation or objection before the competent authority, the present petition is premature and not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 6, being a bona fide whistleblower, had made a complaint against the petitioner regarding the alleged encroachment. It is submitted that the said complaint was made before the competent authority and was not motivated by any personal grievance. Learned counsel further submits that the property of respondent No. 3 is situated adjacent to the house of the petitioner and, therefore, he was directly affected by the alleged encroachment. Accordingly, the action initiated by the authorities on the basis of the said complaint is justified and does not call for any interference. 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the documents available on record, it appears that the land in question bearing Khasra No. 1142/1 is recorded as Nazul land (Grass) and is owned by the State Government. It is also not in dispute that, as per the revenue records relied upon by the respondents, the petitioner has been shown as an encroacher over the said land. However, before taking any coercive action for removal of encroachment, the principles of natural justice require that an opportunity of hearing be afforded to all concerned persons and their objections/documents be duly considered by the competent authority. 8. It is further noticed that the Municipal Council has issued the impugned notice dated 29.03.2023 for removal of encroachment. Since the question regarding encroachment over Government land requires examination of the relevant revenue records and the documents relied upon by the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the competent revenue authorities to undertake an inquiry in accordance with law. 9. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 shall be afforded an opportunity to produce all relevant documents in support of their respective claims regarding possession and entitlement over the land in question. In case, upon such inquiry, it is found that the petitioner and/or respondent No. 3 are occupying any portion of Government land without lawful authority, necessary proceedings for removal of such 5 encroachment shall be initiated and completed in accordance with law. 10. This Court also takes note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the obligation of the State authorities to protect Government land and remove unauthorized encroachments. The revenue authorities are duty-bound to act in accordance with law and cannot permit encroachments over Government land. The competent authorities shall ensure strict compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. 11. In Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structure, in Re (2025) 5 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- IX. Directions 93. In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary to issue certain directions in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are also of the view that even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before an appropriate forum. We are further of the view that even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period. 6 94. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law. A. Notice B. Personal hearing C. Final Order D. An opportunity of appellate and judicial scrutiny of the final order E. Proceedings of demolition” 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned notice dated 29.03.2023 issued by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. However, the quashing of the notice shall not preclude the competent authorities from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law after conducting proper inquiry and after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 3. 13. Accordingly, respondent authorities are directed to forward the records of the present case forthwith to the competent revenue authority. The said authority shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter proceed to examine the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 shall be at liberty to place all relevant documents before the competent authority to establish their lawful possession or entitlement, if any. 7 14. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned revenue authorities for necessary compliance. The concerned authorities shall submit a compliance report before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the period stipulated herein. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 17. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha