1 CGHC010297282026 2026:CGHC:34388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4087 of 2026 1 - Bharat Nishad Son Of Dhaniram Nishad Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Bahinga, Tahsil And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chaitran Nishad Son Of Hagru Nishad, Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Village Bahinga, Tahsil And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bemetara District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Bemetara District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Bemetara District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Bahinga, Tahsil And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.06 18:17:25 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.08.2026 1 By filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the eviction order dated 22.06.2026 and the consequential memo of even date issued by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate and remove their occupation within seven days, allegedly without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording them an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned eviction order dated 22.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 4 and impugned memo dated 22.06.2026 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent no. 4, in the interest of justice. (ii) 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 petitioners.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners have been residing in the subject premises for several decades and have been treated as encroachers by the respondent authorities, the petitioners are confining their prayer to a limited extent. It is submitted that the petitioners may be granted 3 reasonable time to submit an appropriate reply/representation before the competent authority against the proposed eviction. Learned counsel further submits that considering the prevailing rainy season, immediate eviction would cause extreme hardship to the petitioners and their family members, who have no alternative accommodation. It is, therefore, prayed that an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to place their case before the competent authority before any coercive action is taken. 3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that if the petitioners submit a reply/representation before the competent authority within the time granted by this Court, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a reasonable period. 4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 Considering the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and taking note of the fact that the rainy season is presently underway, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate reply/representation before the competent authority within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If such reply/representation is submitted within the aforesaid period, the competent authority shall consider and 4 decide the same, by passing a reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days thereafter. 6 It is expected that till the petitioners' reply/representation is considered and decided within the aforesaid period, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners, subject to their filing the reply within the time granted by this Court. 7 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims or on the legality of the impugned proceedings, and all questions are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 8 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh