1 CGHC010349232024 2026:CGHC:36882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5138 of 2024 1 - Sunder Singh Patle S/o Late Govverdhan Patle Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Kevtara, Police Station And Tehsil - Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tehsildar Pachpedi Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Ram Satta Singh S/o Melaram Suryavanshi Aged About 68 Years R/o Village - Kevtara, Police Station And Tehsil - Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 WPC No. 5423 of 2024 1 - Dev Singh Patle S/o Late Goverdhan Patle, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village-Kevtara, Police Station And Tehsil-Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Masturi, District-Bilaspur (C.G.). 5 - The Tehsildar, Pachpedi, District-Bilaspur (C.G.). 6 - Ram Satta Singh S/o Melaram Suryavanshi, Aged About 68 Years R/o Village-Kevtara, Police Station And Tehsil-Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 3 18/08/2026 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 5138/2024 (Sunder Singh Patle vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by respondent no. 4 and further may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent no. 4 to petitioner may not be remove the subject land on account patta, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, 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 petitioner may be given.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred the present petition being aggrieved by the notice/order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the concerned Tahsildar, Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment over an area 4 of 630 sq. ft. forming part of Khasra No. 634/1. It is submitted that the petitioner has been duly granted patta in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 634/1 admeasuring 1 acre and, pursuant thereto, he is in lawful possession thereof. Learned counsel further submits that, on an earlier occasion also, a complaint had been made with regard to the alleged encroachment and proceedings were initiated by the authorities; however, the said proceedings were subsequently closed in connection with the other matter, which is also subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 5423/2024, listed at Item No. 62. It is further submitted that, upon receipt of subsequent complaints, proceedings were again initiated and orders came to be passed without affording the petitioner an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing. Although a show-cause notice was issued on 25.04.2024, thereafter, vide order dated 28.06.2024, a penalty of Rs.1,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and he was further directed to remove the alleged encroachment over an area of 630 sq. ft. from Khasra No. 634/1. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity to place his documents and submissions before the authority and, therefore, the impugned notice/order, having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, deserves to be quashed and the matter ought to be remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits 5 that, upon perusal of the notice as well as the order dated 28.06.2024, it is evident that the petitioner was duly issued a prior notice on 25.04.2024. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on several dates, on approximately five occasions, and only after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner was the order dated 28.06.2024 passed. It is submitted that the authorities have recorded a finding that the petitioner had encroached upon an area of 630 sq. ft. of access land forming part of Khasra No. 634/1. Learned State counsel further submits that although the petitioner has been granted patta in respect of Khasra No. 634/1 admeasuring 1 acre, such patta does not confer any right upon him to encroach upon or obstruct the access land. The subsequent proceedings were initiated on the basis of fresh complaints and, therefore, the mere fact that some earlier proceedings had been closed would not preclude the competent authority from examining a subsequent complaint alleging a continuing or fresh encroachment. It is also submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available before the competent appellate authority against the order passed by the Tahsildar, which remedy has not been availed by him. Instead of approaching the concerned authorities and producing the relevant documents in support of his claim, the petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. On these grounds, it is submitted that the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the order-sheet commencing from 25.04.2024 up to 28.06.2024, as well as the panchnama available on record, it appears that the stand of the authorities is that the petitioner has encroached upon an area of 630 sq. ft. of access land out of the land covered by the patta granted in his favour, which admittedly pertains to Khasra No. 634/1 admeasuring 1 acre. The dispute, therefore, essentially relates to the identification and demarcation of the land covered by the petitioner's patta vis-à-vis the alleged access land and the alleged encroachment thereon. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, more particularly, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, this Court is of the considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned Tahsildar, Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, for fresh consideration. The concerned Tahsildar shall afford the petitioner a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and shall consider the patta allegedly granted in favour of the petitioner, the area covered thereunder, the relevant revenue records, the panchnama and all other documents/material which may be produced by the parties. 8. It is made clear that, after examining the relevant revenue records and undertaking such enquiry or demarcation as may be 7 necessary in accordance with law, if the competent authority finds that the petitioner has encroached upon any access land or any other land not covered by the patta granted in his favour, the concerned Tahsildar shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. However, any such order shall be passed only after affording the petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing and after duly considering the documents and submissions placed by him on record. 9. The petitioner, in turn, shall cooperate with the proceedings before the concerned authority and shall produce all relevant documents, including the patta and other revenue records, in support of his claim. 10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Tahsildar, Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon appearance, the concerned authority shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and shall make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of 45 days thereafter. 11. Till the aforesaid exercise is completed and the appropriate order is passed by the concerned authority, the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5138/2024 on 16.10.2024 shall remain operative. 8 12. With this observation and direction, the writ petitions is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat