1 CGHC010269762023 2026:CGHC:36989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3696 of 2023 Narayandas Thakur S/o - Nathumal Thakur Aged About 52 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, House No. 250, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Engineer Sub Division-I I, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mirza Hafiz Baig, Advocate with Ms. Shobha Lal Senger, Advocate. For respondent-State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, PL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: “10. Relief(s) Sought: (i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record from the office of the 2 respondent authorities, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Notice dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 5, in the interest of justice. (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any action without demarcation of the alleged land, in the interest of justice. (iv) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred the present petition being aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner alleging him to be an encroacher, was directed to remove the alleged encroachment within a period of three days, however, the petitioner is not an encroacher and land in question belongs to him. Being aggrieved by said notice, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the above reliefs. 3. Learned State Counsel, referring to its reply, submits that the petitioner is not the title-holder of the land in question, the impugned notice directing removal of the encroachment has rightly been issued by the competent authority. Hence, impugned notice does not warrant any interference by this Court. The relevant portion of the reply is reproduced hereinbelow: 3 ‘7. So far as the ground taken by the petitioner that the impugned notice has been issued for removing the construction without proper demarcation and the notice cannot be sent to any person without demarcating the alleged land in presence of the persons. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that prior to issuing the impugned notice upon the application made by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Vidhan Sabha Division before the Tahsildar Raipur and as per the order of the Tahsildar a duly constituted team of the revenue authorities have done the demarcation of the land in question on 19/06/2023 and at the time of demarcation the Sub Engineer, Narendra Verma, Suryakant Yadu, Spot Assistant Kamlesh Singh, R.S. Kshatri as well as the present petitioner was also present which is evident from the signature of the petitioner in the Panchama dated 19/06/2023 and as per the demarcation report/spot map it is clear that the present petitioner had encroached upon 4 Meter towards North Side and 2 Meter towards South side upon the existing government Major District Road i.e. Mowa-Daldal Seoni-Urkura. Copy of the Demarcation report, Panchanama, spot map, photographs and report is annexed herewith as Annexure-R-1. 8. In view of the above submissions it is thus clear that the petitioner had encroached upon the government land/existing road side which is evident from the spot map as the land in question of the petitioner is nearby to the existing road and therefore the present petition as framed and filed is not tenable and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. AS TO PARAS 8.2 TO 8.6 OF PETITION: As regard contents of this para of the petition it is respectfully submitted that the respondents/State is a welfare State and is keen to protect the interest of its citizens by constructing smooth roads and thus looking to the need and requirement the existing MDR (Major District Road) road i.e. Mowa-Daldal Seoni-Urkura road length 2.60 Kilometers the State Government as well as the Chhattisgarh Road and Infrastructure Development Road Corporation Limited, Raipur (CG) has granted the administrative sanction for construction of 4 Lane road vide order dated 07/06/2021 of existing road and accordingly the Engineering Incharge l.e. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department has initiated the process for floating the tender for construction of the same and the work of construction of the 4-Lane road is in progress and as 4 the present petitioner had encroached upon the government land l.e. existing road and therefore the respondent No.5 had issued impugned notice to the petitioner to remove the illegal encroachment by him over the government land/existing road side. It is respectfully submitted that though the impugned notice has been issued in the name of Manoharlal Thakur (deceased) S/o. Nathumal R/o. Mowa Daldal Seoni District Raipur (CG), who was/is the brother of the petitioner and the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 532 is adjoining to the existing road i.e. Mowa-Daldal Seoni-Urkura and therefore the answering respondent No.5 had issued the impugned notice for removing the illegal encroachment by him which is though received by the present petitioner and filed in the present petition impugned the same and thus the petitioner cannot take a ground that the same has been issued in the name of his brother who was expired and the petitioner is not having any notice or knowledge in this regard. So far as the ground taken by the petitioner that the impugned notice has been issued for removing the construction without proper demarcation and the notice cannot be sent to any person without demarcating the alleged land in presence of the persons. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that prior to issuing the Impugned application made by the Executive Engineer, notice upon the Public Works Department, Vidhan Sabha Division before the Tahsildar Ralpur and as per the order of the Tahsildar a duly constituted team of the revenue authorities have done the demarcation of the land in question 19/06/2023 and at the time of demarcation the Sub Engineer, Narendra Verma, Suryakant Yadu, Spot Assistant Kamlesh Singh, R.S. Kshatri as well as the present petitioner was also present which is evident from the signature of the petitioner in the Panchama dated 19/06/2023 and as per the demarcation report/spot map it is clear that the present petitioner had encroached upon 4 Meter towards North Side and 2 Meter towards South side upon the existing government Major District Road i.e. Mowa-Daldal Seoni-Urkura. In view of the above submissions it is thus clear that the petitioner had encroached upon the government land/existing road side which is evident from the spot map as the land in question of the petitioner is nearby to the existing road and therefore the present petition as framed and filed is not tenable and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed.’ 5 4. Although learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an encroacher and land in question belongs to him, upon perusal of writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner has not placed on record any documentary evidence establishing his title, ownership or lawful entitlement over the land in question. 5. Since the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner, he was at liberty to place the relevant documents in support of his claim before the competent authority. However, instead of submitting an appropriate reply and producing the relevant documents before the concerned authority, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained an interim order dated 18.08.2023, whereby the respondent authorities were directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice (Annexure P-1). 6. Upon consideration of the reply filed by the State, it appears that the title, ownership and entitlement of the petitioner in respect of the land in question cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of the pleadings and material presently available on record. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) alongwith appropriate documentary evidence establishing his title, ownership and lawful entitlement over the land in question within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of said documents, the concerned SDO shall consider the 6 claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 60 days. 8. Till expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice in terms of the interim order of this Court’s dated 18.08.2023. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.