1 CGHC010406562024 2026:CGHC:39549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5895 of 2024 Smt. Vineeta Singhaniya W/o Shri Arvind Kumar Singhaniya Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 359, Singhaniya Agency, Rani Road, Korba, Tehsil And Distt. - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Hasdeo Barrage, Water Resources Division, Rampur/korba, Distt. - Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Hasdeo Barrage Water Resources Sub- Division - Darri/korba, Distt. - Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar And Executive Magistrate Korba, Distt. - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/09/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the order/notice dated 11.11.2024 issued by respondent No.3. Annexure P/1. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Facts of the case according to the petitioner, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased land bearing Khasara No. 589/1, admeasuring 0.11 acre/0.045 hectare/445.72 square metres, situated at Village Korba, P.H. No. 16, R.I. Circle Korba, Tehsil and District Korba (C.G.), from Shrikrishna Saw Mill, Korba, through its proprietor Devji Bhai, by registered sale deed dated 20.12.2022. It is stated that the northern boundary of the said land adjoins the land of the Water Resources Department. Thereafter, the petitioner got her name mutated in the revenue records and claims to be in possession of the said land. The petitioner further obtained permission for diversion of the land use from the competent authority and thereafter obtained building permission from the Nagar Nigam for construction of a commercial complex. After obtaining the requisite permissions, the petitioner 3 commenced construction over the land. Respondent No.3 subsequently directed her to remove the construction alleging that the same was being raised over Government land. The petitioner submitted a reply contending that the construction was being carried out over her own land and requested demarcation of the property. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued notice/order dated 11.11.2024 alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon an area of about 480 square feet and directed removal of the construction, failing which the construction was threatened to be demolished on 14.11.2024. According to the petitioner, the said notice/order did not mention the identity or boundaries of the alleged encroached land and was issued without conducting any proper demarcation or survey. It is also alleged that the notice mentioned the name of Tushar Singhaniya, who is the petitioner's son, whereas the disputed land is owned by the petitioner, and that the action was actuated by mala fide intention. The petitioner further states that on 14.11.2024, respondent No.3, along with police personnel and a bulldozer, reached the petitioner's property and attempted to demolish the construction. Upon the petitioner requesting ten days' time to avail of the appropriate legal remedy, the authorities granted the said period and stated that the construction would be removed thereafter. Being aggrieved by the threatened demolition and the notice/order dated 11.11.2024, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the impugned 4 notice/order issued by respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the respondent failed to demarcate the land or identify the specific portion allegedly encroached upon by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the land, which was purchased after due verification of the revenue records and preparation of the requisite documents. Her name was duly mutated in the revenue records, permission for diversion was granted, and the Municipal Corporation and Electricity Company also granted the requisite permissions for construction. However, these material facts were not considered by respondent No.3. He also submits that the impugned notice is, in substance, an order directing removal of the construction and is not a mere show- cause notice, as it does not provide adequate particulars or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case. Before taking any coercive action, respondent No.3 ought to have conducted proper demarcation and identified the alleged encroachment. Therefore, the impugned notice/order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner is an encroacher over the disputed land and, accordingly, notice was issued for removal of the unauthorized construction. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner sought ten days’ time to avail the legal remedy, which was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPS No. 5895/2024, wherein, by order dated 5 11.12.2024, this Hon’ble Court directed the State to get the disputed land demarcated to ascertain whether the construction had been raised over the petitioner’s land or the respondents’ land. He further submits that in compliance with the said order, the respondents approached the revenue authorities for demarcation of the disputed land. Upon demarcation, it was found that the petitioner had raised the disputed construction over Khasara Nos. 630 and 631, which are owned by the answering respondents. Accordingly, respondent No.4 issued letter dated 29.05.2025 along with the demarcation report dated 17.04.2025, confirming the alleged encroachment and unauthorized construction. He also submits that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law and there is no arbitrariness or inaction on their part. The allegations made by the petitioner are denied, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the notice dated 11.11.2024, it does not transpire that the encroachment, which has been alleged by the department, is on which portion of the land. According to the petitioner, the notice is insufficient and, therefore, demarcation is required to be done in order to ascertain whether the land of the concerned department, i.e. Hasdeo Barrage Water Resources Sub-Division, has been encroached upon by the petitioner or not. He submits that earlier this Court, vide its order dated 11.12.2024, had directed the person officiating to demarcate the land and to show the 6 encroachment allegedly made by the petitioner. On 19.08.2026, the State counsel was directed to call for the records of the demarcation proceedings which had been initiated pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2024. Accordingly, today, the demarcation proceedings containing the memo dated 29.05.2025, the report of the concerned R.I., Korba-1, Tehsildar, Korba, and the field book have been filed. From the Panchnama, it appears that the concerned petitioner has raised an objection stating that the demarcation has not been done and only service has been effected. The petitioner is not satisfied with the same and has raised an objection. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to conduct a fresh demarcation in accordance with Section 129 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code as well as the Rules appended thereto, after giving notice to the petitioner. Such demarcation shall be conducted in the presence of the petitioner and, after conducting such demarcation, the report thereof shall be provided to the petitioner so that he may approach the authorities concerned, if he is aggrieved by the aforesaid demarcation. The concerned SDO (Revenue) is directed to constitute a committee for demarcation of the land in question, consisting of one Tehsildar, two Revenue Inspectors and two Patwaris. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the authorities concerned in the demarcation of the land. The aforesaid exercise 7 be completed within a period of 45 days. The authorities concerned shall inform the petitioner at least 7 days prior to the date of demarcation, and thereafter, the demarcation shall be conducted in accordance with law, after calling the neighbouring landowners as well as the petitioner. In case the petitioner is satisfied, there is no question of any further inquiry or proceeding. However, if the petitioner is dissatisfied, he may approach the appellate authority in accordance with law. 7. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the authorities concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Akhil