1 CGHC010185372024 2026:CGHC:37821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2818 of 2024 1 - Hemant Sao S/o Heeraram Teli, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kudari Bahra, Police Station And Tahsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nayab Tashsildar, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Abhuday Tripathi, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the eviction notice dated 24-05-2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.5, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the structure within a period of 07 days from Khasra No.141 area 3.36 hectare, on which it has been alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon 7.70 x 7.30 sq.meter of land. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 13-03-2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Board AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.25 10:41:31 +0530 2 of Revenue, whereby the revision against the order dated 08-06-2023 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of a small portion of land measuring approximately 7.70 metres × 7.30 metres, which, according to the respondents, forms part of Government land bearing Khasra No. 141, admeasuring approximately 3.36 hectares. Respondent-Tahsildar issued a notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon the aforesaid Government land. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said notice, specifically denying that he had encroached upon any Government land and disputing the alleged measurement and identification of the land. The petitioner submits that a proper demarcation of the land was not carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Although it was stated that demarcation had taken place in the presence of the petitioner, the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector was prepared without proper participation of the petitioner and without conducting the demarcation in the manner required under law. Despite the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondent-Tahsildar passed an order dated 25.04.2022, whereby a penalty of Rs.1,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and an order for eviction from the alleged encroached land was also passed. The petitioner, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, deposited the penalty imposed by the Tahsildar. The petitioner also submitted an application before the learned Collector seeking allotment/grant of Patta in respect of the land in question under the applicable Government scheme. In the said application, the petitioner expressed his willingness to comply with all the requirements prescribed 3 under the scheme and to deposit the requisite amount/fees. Since the order dated 25.04.2022 was not sustainable in law and the petitioner was aggrieved by the direction of eviction, he preferred a revision before the learned Collector. The learned Collector, however, rejected the revision vide order dated 08.06.2023. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a further revision before the learned Board of Revenue, challenging the order passed by the learned Collector as well as the original order of the Tahsildar. In the revision before the learned Board of Revenue, the petitioner specifically raised the issue regarding the identification of the land and the discrepancy/clarification appearing in the Revenue Inspector's report with regard to the Khasra number alleged to have been encroached upon. The petitioner also specifically challenged the manner in which the alleged demarcation had been conducted. Learned Board of Revenue, Camp Court, Raipur, however, dismissed the revision vide order dated 13.02.2024. The petitioner has throughout disputed the allegation of encroachment and has consistently raised the issue of proper identification and demarcation of the land. However, the authorities have proceeded against the petitioner without properly addressing the said objections and without furnishing a lawful and conclusive determination of the actual land allegedly encroached upon. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the revenue authorities, particularly the order dated 25.04.2022 passed under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code by the Tahsildar, the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Collector and the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, and being apprehensive of coercive eviction, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief in accordance 4 with law. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is an encroacher and as such, he has no right to possess the government land in question. The authorities i.e. Tehsildar, the Collector and the Board of Revenue has rightly passed the impugned order which is not required to be interfered with. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has moved an application dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) for allotment/grant of Patta in respect of the land in question which is pending consideration before the learned Collector. The petitioner has already expressed his willingness to comply with the applicable legal procedure and to deposit the requisite fees under the Government scheme. The petitioner and his family have been residing at the place in question and are dependent upon the said premises for their residence. Any coercive eviction, without proper determination of the petitioner's objections and without consideration of his pending application for allotment, would cause serious and irreparable prejudice to the petitioner and his family and would leave them without shelter. As such, he prays that concerned authority may be directed to decide the application for allotment of patta in accordance with law by passing appropriate orders. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the revenue authorities, namely, the Tehsildar, Collector and Board of Revenue, have concurrently found the petitioner to be an encroacher over Government land. No ground has been made out in the present proceedings warranting interference with the said finding. 5 6. However, it is undisputed that the petitioner has submitted an application dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) seeking allotment/grant of patta in respect of the land in question and that the said application is pending consideration before the Collector. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim for allotment/settlement of the land, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Collector to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 27.02.2023, in accordance with the applicable law, rules and Government policy, by passing a reasoned and appropriate order. 8. The Collector shall consider the application independently and, if the petitioner fulfills the requisite criteria under the applicable scheme, the application shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to allotment, grant of patta or settlement of the land in question. The Collector shall examine the application on its own merits and take a decision strictly in accordance with the applicable law, rules and Government policy. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash