1 CGHC010226852024 2026:CGHC:36083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3455 of 2024 Smt. Jayvanta Khobragarhe W/o Shri Motiram Khobragarhe Aged About 46 Years R/o Kh, No. 182, P.H.N.- 18, Ambagarh Chowki, Dist- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Ambagarh Chowki, Dist- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Sub Division No. 03, Ambagarh Chowki, Distt- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildaar Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Ms. Unnati Sinha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. The petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the notice dated 15.06.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division No. 03, Ambagarh, District Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the alleged encroachment made in the canal within a period of five days, failing which, necessary action was proposed to be taken against her. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 To restrict the respondent authorities from demolishing the house of the Petitioner House on Khasra No. 182/2 Ph. No. 18 Ward No. 3, Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 10.2 To quash the impugned notice dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 4/Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resource Sub-Division No. 03, Ambagarh, District- Mohala Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ” 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never encroached upon any land belonging to the respondents over which the canal has been constructed. It is submitted that the petitioner is in lawful possession of her own land, which was duly allotted to her on 02.11.2021 by way of lease (patta) under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nagariya Kshetra Bhoomiheen Vyakti (Pattadhrit Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984. Since the canal was being constructed adjacent to the petitioner's residential house, the petitioner, during the course of construction, had temporarily covered the water flowing through the canal with soil, only with a view to facilitate and safeguard the ongoing construction work. Such temporary arrangement was never intended to constitute, nor did it result in, any encroachment upon the land of the respondents or upon the canal land. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the land allotted to her since 02.11.2021, and her possession is founded upon a valid lease/patta granted under the aforesaid statutory provisions. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner has encroached upon the canal or any land belonging to the respondents is wholly misconceived and contrary to the factual position. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that all the persons who were served with the impugned notice dated 4 15.06.2024 have already removed the encroachments allegedly made by them. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid removal of encroachments by other persons the petitioner is still causing obstruction in the ongoing construction of the canal, thereby hampering the execution and completion of the work. In view of the obstruction being caused by the petitioner, the impugned notice was rightly issued by the competent authority, directing her to remove the obstruction/encroachment within the stipulated period. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notice does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for grant of the reliefs sought in the present petition and, accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the documents available on record, and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel, it appears that the petitioner had temporarily blocked the flow of the canal with soil till the construction work was completed and at that time, no objection was raised by any person. It appears from the aforesaid submissions advanced by the petitioner that, at present, the petitioner is not causing any obstruction and as such, perhaps the purpose for which the notice 5 has been issued has been fulfilled. However, in case any exigency arises, either of the parties shall be at liberty to file an appropriate petition in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL