1 CGHC010320182024 2026:CGHC:37669 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4681 of 2024 1 - Sukhnandan Das Jangde S/o. Shri Deva Das Jangde Aged About 28 Years Occupation - Self Employed, R/o. Sirvabandha, Tehsil/district - Bemetara, Currently Reside At Ward No. 21, Kurmipara, Bemetara, Tahsil/district - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Corporation Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Rajesh Nishad S/o. Ramswrup Nishad Aged About 37 Years R/o. Ward No. 21, Kurmipara, Bemetara, Tahsil/district - Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Of Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri UNS Deo, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Vaibhav A Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/08/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the inaction on the part of respondent authorities over the complaint made by petitioner stating that Respondent No.2 has encroached the government land in front of the house of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.24 13:46:18 +0530 2 Ward No. 21, Kurmipara, Bemetra, District Bemetra, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner’s family is the recorded owner/holder of land bearing Khasra No. 649/3, admeasuring 0.019 hectare. Land belonging to the petitioner is situated adjacent to the main road, and there is vacant Government land situated between the main road and the petitioner’s land on the southern side. Respondent No. 2, who is also a resident of the same locality and is a politically influential person, has allegedly encroached upon the aforesaid Government land and has raised an unauthorized construction in the nature of a temple thereon, without obtaining any lawful permission or sanction from the competent authority. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the unauthorized encroachment and construction over Government land, submitted an application before the Court of the Tahsildar, Bemetra, on 28.05.2024, seeking removal/vacation of the encroachment and appropriate action against respondent No. 2. After considering the said application and hearing the concerned parties, the learned Tahsildar, Bemetra, passed an order dated 16.07.2024, whereby directions were issued for immediate stoppage/closure of the unauthorized construction being carried out by respondent No. 2. Despite the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the competent revenue authority directing stoppage of the unauthorized construction, respondent No. 2 continued with the construction activities in violation of the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly approached the Court of the Tahsildar, Bemetra, and also submitted representations/applications before the concerned Police Station and various competent authorities, requesting them to take immediate action for removal/demolition of the illegal construction and restoration of the 3 Government land. However, despite repeated representations, no effective action has been taken by the concerned officials till date. The construction raised by respondent No. 2 over the Government land is illegal, unauthorized and without lawful authority. No permission, sanction or authorization has been granted by the competent authority for raising the said construction over the Government land. The concerned respondent/Corporation and other competent authorities are under a statutory and public duty to protect Government land from encroachment and to take appropriate action against unauthorized construction. Despite the petitioner repeatedly approaching the concerned authorities and submitting written applications for removal of the encroachment and demolition of the unauthorized structure, no effective action has been taken, nor has any proper response been furnished to the petitioner. The continued inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, despite the specific order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Tahsildar directing stoppage of the unauthorized construction, has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions for removal of the encroachment and unauthorized construction from the Government land and for protection of the public/revenue land in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 26.09.2024 had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the construction as it existed at that time, however, ignoring that order, respondent No.2 has raised construction compelling the petitioner to file a contempt petition which is pending before this Court. In support of her case, she would place reliance in the judgment dated 22.09.2016 passed by this Court in WA No.389/2016 {Vinod Soni and Others vs. Rajesh Kumar Sahu and Others} and judgment 4 dated 19.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.6177 of 2006 and other connected matters {Shri Manohar Bapurao Khorgade and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.}. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 submits that proceedings under Section 248 of Chattisgarh Land Revenue Code have already been initiated by the Tehsildar, as such, petitioner should approach before the Tehsildar who, after considering his grievance, will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. State of Gujarat and Others { (2011) 14 SCC 62} held in paragraph 5, which reads as under:- 5. As an interim measure, we direct that henceforth no unauthorised construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of temple, church, mosque or gurdwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places etc. In respect of the unauthorised construction of religious nature which has already taken place, the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on case-to-case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible." 5. This Court being conscious of the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed in the matter of Vinod Soni (supra) in paragraph 6 as under:- 6. In the present case also, the State has taken action and an order for demolition of the temple and for possession of the said land has been passed in favour of the State. This order has to be and must be complied with in letter and spirit. No person can be permitted to set up a temple on 5 public land. If a person is very religious, he can set up a temple on his own land or he can purchase a land for setting up the temple. A person cannot show his charitable or spiritual nature by encroaching upon the public property. A person who violates the law and encroaches upon public property cannot claim that he has set up a house of God. The very basis on which the structure was erected was by encroaching upon public land. The Rule of law runs like a Golden Thread through our Constitution. When the Rule of law is violated, there can be no religious or spiritual sanctity. No religion or spiritual thought preaches violation of the Rule of law. Therefore, a structure set up in violation of the Rule of law can never be treated to be a house of God. 6. Further, the High Court of judicature at Bombay in the matter of Shri Manohar Bapurao Khorgade (supra) held in paragraph No.22 as under:- 22......It could thus be seen that the principles laid down in the case of Nazir Ahmad .vs. King Emperor (AIR 1936 P.C. 253) that when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in that manner alone or not at all, is more than well-settled. From the aforesaid judgment, it could be seen that the Apex Court has also applied the same principle even in contractual matters and held that when an employer requires a bank guarantee to be given in a particular format, it has to be given in that format alone and not in any other format. We find that the said G.R. prescribes the procedure and lays down a policy to give effect to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It provides for categorization of the structures into three categories l.e. the one which can be regularized, the second one which are required to be demolished and the third one which can be relocated. The G.R. provides the procedure for categorization, 6 regularization and demolition of thousands of structures in the State of Maharashtra, belonging to the people professing different religions like Hindusim. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Sikhism. It provides for the different factors which are required to be taken into consideration while finalizing the categorization. It also provides for the principles of natural justice, which are required to be followed while taking the decision by the Committee. We, therefore, see no reason as to why the aforesaid well settled principle laid down in the case of Nazir Ahmad and which has been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court should also not be made applicable to the aforesaid G.R. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, In re, (2025) 5 SCC 1, held in paragraph 94.1 to 94.10, which reads as under:- “94.1. No demolition should be carried out without a prior show-cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days' time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later. 94.2. The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier by a registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall also be affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure in question. 94.3. The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start from the date of receipt of the said notice. 94.4. To prevent any allegation of backdating, we direct that as soon as the show-cause notice is duly served, intimation thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/District Magistrate of the district digitally by email and an auto generated reply acknowledging receipt of the mail should also be issued from the office of the Collector/District Magistrate. The Collector/DM shall designate a Nodal Officer and also assign an email address and communicate the same to all the municipal and other authorities in charge 7 of building regulations and demolition within one month from today. 94.5. The notice shall contain the details regarding: (a) The nature of the unauthorised construction. (b) The details of the specific violation and the grounds of demolition. (c) A list of documents that the noticee is required to furnish along with his reply. (d) The notice should also specify the date on which the personal hearing is fixed and the designated authority before whom the hearing will take place. 94.6. Every municipal/local authority shall assign a designated digital portal, within 3 months from today wherein details regarding service/pasting of the notice, the reply, the show-cause notice and the order passed thereon would be available. 94.7. The designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned. 94.8. The minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded. 94.9. Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass a final order. 94.10. The final order shall contain: (a) The contentions of the noticee, and if the designated authority disagrees with the same, the reasons thereof. (b) As to whether the unauthorised construction is compoundable, if it is not so, the reasons therefor. (c) If the designated authority finds that only part of the construction is unauthorised/non-compoundable, then the details thereof. (d) As to why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available and other options like compounding and demolishing only part of the property are not available. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that proceedings under Section 248 of the CGLRC are already pending before the Tehsildar, Bemetra. The said proceedings provide the appropriate statutory mechanism for determination of the allegation regarding unauthorized occupation of Government land. 8 Therefore, at this stage, this Court does not consider it appropriate to undertake an independent adjudication regarding the alleged encroachment or to issue a direct order for demolition of the structure. The competent revenue authority is required to examine the factual and legal aspects of the matter in accordance with the statutory procedure. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to the proceedings pending before the Tehsildar, Bemetra. The Tehsildar shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and all relevant material placed before him and shall determine, in accordance with law, whether respondent No.2 has illegally occupied Government land and has raised any unauthorized construction thereon. 10.In the event the Tehsildar finds that respondent No.2 has encroached upon Government land and has raised an unauthorized construction thereon, the Tehsildar shall take appropriate action and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 11. Needless to observe, before passing any adverse order or taking coercive action, the competent authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to respondent No.2 and all other stakeholders whose rights are likely to be affected, and shall comply with the procedural safeguards prescribed by law, including those laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (supra). 12.The proceedings shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a reasonable period, subject to there being no legal impediment. 13. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations of encroachment or unauthorized construction, and the 9 Tehsildar shall decide the matter independently on the basis of the material available before him and in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash