1 CGHC010404392022 2026:CGHC:34861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5516 of 2022 Smt. Parwati Banjare W/o Dhaniram Banjare Aged About 38 Years R/o Diptivihar Colony, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal Water Management, Janjgir Division, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir, Canal Branch Sub Division No.1, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.08.2026 1. This writ petition has ben filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following relief(s) :- “10. Reliefs Sought: 1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondents from subjecting the construction/Structure of the petitioner to demolition. 2 2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 2nd December 2022 issued by Respondent no.3 3) Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given” 2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the impugned notice dated 02.12.2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to remove her structure/construction over the land/property in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, impugned notice was issued to her, which is not in accordance with law. The petitioner has never encroached the land of the State, she is in possession of her own land, however, impugned notice has been issued for removal of the encroachment. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with above reliefs. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner and if the petitioner is having any documents to show that she is in possession of her own land or the land in question is belonging to him, she should have been filed appropriate reply to the impugned notice, however, without filing any reply, she has rushed to this Court and has filed this petition. 3 Learned State Counsel further pointed out that the erstwhile owner of the land/property namely Jeetram and Bhagwat have sold the land/property to the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department by way of a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1979, as such, contention of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ petition including relevant documents and impugned notice. 6. Considering the above aspects of the matter, petitioner is directed to file an appropriate reply alongwith relevant documents before the Authorities concerned within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon receipt of such reply, concerned Authorities shall consider and decide the same within 60 days in accordance with law and also keeping this fact that on the one hand the petitioner is saying that she is possession of her own land, whereas respondent-State is saying that this land/property has been purchased from the erstwhile owner namely Jeetram and Bhagwat. 7. Till the petitioner’s reply is decided, concerned Authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.