1 CGHC010370522026 2026:CGHC:41304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4829 of 2026 1 - Rajulal Prajapati S/o Shri Heeralal Prajapati Aged About 49 Years Caste Kumhar, R/o Village Kauhi, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg District Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khemchand Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 P/1) passed by the respondent no.5; 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to compliance the order in favour of petitioner for providing 5 acre land for livelihood work purpose of making urthan pots and urthan bricks, which is passed by Hon'ble Court on dated 13.05.2026; 10.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit & proper as per the facts & circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the removal warrant dated 27.08.2026. He submits that although the petitioner is alleged to be an encroacher upon government land, he has been residing on the land in question for a long period. He further submits that, earlier, this Court had passed an order directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s application for settlement. He submits that the petitioner is a potter by profession and was carrying on his business on the said land. The said activity was objected to by the concerned DEO on the ground that the petitioner had encroached upon a portion of land situated adjacent to the school, causing environmental and noise pollution and thereby affecting the students of the school. He further submits that the petitioner has now stopped carrying on his pottery work on the said premises and is only residing there. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is an encroacher and has no right to reside on the government land in question. He submits that the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be removed from the said land. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that the immediate grievance of the petitioner is against the issuance of the removal warrant, the petitioner is directed to submit an appropriate reply before the concerned authorities within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the concerned authorities shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner has already filed, or files, any application seeking settlement of any other piece of government land, the concerned authorities shall also consider the same in accordance with law. 6. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The petitioner is also directed to submit an appropriate application before the concerned authorities seeking settlement of a suitable piece of government land for his residence, which shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 8. Till 60 days no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 4 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat