1 CGHC010023132021 2026:CGHC:41171 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 535 of 2021 1 - Raghunath S/o Budhram, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Cultivator, Caste Harijan, 2 - Bharat Lal, S/o Ranuram, Aged About 32 Years Occupation Cultivator, Caste Harijan, 3 - Ashok Kumar, S/o Ranu Ram, Aged About 25 Years Occupation Cultivator, Caste Harijan, 4 - Kishun Ram, S/o Dhaniram, Aged About 60 Years Occupation Cultivator, Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Bakna, P.S. & Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh). 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R.), Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Tahsildar, Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 5 - The Revenue Inspector, Circle And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Halka Patwari, Halka No. 19, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Gram Panchayat, Village Bakna, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. Through The Sarpanch, ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ashok K. Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Singh Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Sarfaraj Khan, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/prohibition or of like nature to restrain/prevent the respondents from demolishing the houses of the petitioners and from removing their settled possession over the disputed land and houses and no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioners. 10.2. That, a command / direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to consider for allotment of the said land to the petitioners giving Bhoomiswami right calling for the entire records pertaining to the case. 3 10.3. That, suitable direction/command may kindly be issued to the respondents no. 4 to 6 to pay the compensation of Rs. 20 lacs to the petitioner no. 2 to 4 against the illegal demolition of their houses. 10.4. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the Petitioners including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents, particularly the concerned Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and Patwari, have acted in an arbitrary, unilateral and illegal manner by demolishing the houses of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 on 05.12.2020 without initiating any proceedings, passing any order of demolition or eviction, or issuing any show-cause notice or notice affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have been in settled possession of the property for a long period and that no opportunity to file their reply, lead evidence or put forth their defence was afforded to them before taking the impugned action. It is also submitted that, despite repeated requests, the concerned Tahsildar refused to furnish copies of the alleged proceedings, stating that no proceedings had been drawn on record and that the action was taken directly at the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in view of their long-standing possession over the land in question, the petitioners have also sought consideration of their claim for allotment of the said land, which, according to him, has not been considered by the respondents. 4 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the action taken by the concerned revenue authorities was in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no lawful right or title over the land in question and, therefore, their claim for allotment of the said land is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 submits that this Court, vide order dated 05.02.2021, had directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned Tahsildar. He submits that, despite the said direction having been passed as far back as on 05.02.2021, the petitioner has not appeared before the concerned revenue authority. It is further submitted that the Tahsildar had already issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish his explanation and had fixed 25.01.2021 for the said purpose. However, instead of appearing before the concerned authority, the petitioner approached this Court, pursuant to which this Court, vide order dated 05.02.2021, directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned authority. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Tahsildar/competent revenue authority within a period of 15 days from today and submit his reply along with all relevant documents in support of his case. 6. Upon receipt of the reply and documents, the concerned authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a 5 period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the reply and documents from the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The concerned authority shall consider and decide the matter independently, in accordance with law and without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 8. Till the aforesaid period of 45 days, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of the subject matter of the present petition. The interim order dated 05.02.2021, insofar as it relates to protection of possession, shall continue to remain in force during the said period. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi