1 CGHC010030992021 2026:CGHC:40963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 699 of 2021 Daniel Masih S/o Noor Masih Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Rouha, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sharad Kumar Sharma S/o Ganesh Prasad Sharma R/o Mahamaya Chowk, Pandariya, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 704 of 2021 Daniel Masih S/o Noor Masih Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Rouha, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 2 - Sharad Kumar Sharma S/o Ganesh Prasad Sharma R/o Mahamaya Chowk, Pandariya Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A.. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/09/2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 07.07.2020 passed by the Learned Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court- Raipur in Revision Case No.- R.N./08/R/B- 121/276/2015. 10.2 Any other order/direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the private respondent filed an application before the Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.), against the petitioner seeking cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of land bearing 3 Khasra No. 10, admeasuring 0.29 acres, situated at Village Rouha, R.I.C. Pandariya. It was alleged by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was granted a lease over 630 sq. ft. of Government land in the year 1998–1999 under the Rajiv Gandhi Aashray Yojna. However, the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of land in excess of 630 sq. ft. It was further alleged that the land in question is recorded as grass land in the Government records and, therefore, the grant of lease in respect thereof is illegal. It was also alleged that the lease was granted only for a period of 10 years and, therefore, the same is liable to be cancelled. The learned Additional Collector, vide order dated 31.12.2011, rejected the application filed by the private respondent on the ground that an application filed by the private respondent under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was already pending before the learned Tahsildar and, therefore, the matter had already been taken cognizance of by the competent authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue, C.G., is not sustainable in law. He submits that the Board of Revenue has erred in directing dispossession of the petitioners, particularly when an order had already been passed directing consideration of the validity of the lease. He further submits that the Board of Revenue did not have jurisdiction to entertain the revision under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, as a 4 second appeal under Section 44(2) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, was maintainable before the Board of Revenue. He further submits that the Board of Revenue, vide the impugned order, partly interfered with the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Durg. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was granted a residential lease in respect of 630 sq. ft. of land, whereas, as per the site inspection report dated 26.07.2010, the petitioner has encroached upon 7,345 sq. ft. of Government as well as private land. He further submits that the petitioner’s lease expired in the year 2008 and no proceedings for renewal of the lease have been initiated. Therefore, the petitioner is presently in the status of a trespasser in respect of the leased land. 5. Learned State Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the Board of Revenue has directed the Additional Collector, Kabirdham, to take appropriate action for removal of the petitioner’s illegal occupation over the Government land and to decide the matter on merits after conducting a lawful inquiry into the validity of the lease of the land in question granted in favour of the non-applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. 7. From a perusal of the order dated 07.07.2020, it appears that the Board of Revenue has observed that respondent No. 2 had made a complaint against the petitioner alleging that, in the year 1998– 5 99, the petitioner was granted a lease for 630 sq. ft. of land for a period of 10 years under the Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojna, but that he had occupied land in excess of the leased area. In this regard, the Collector had sought an inquiry report from the Tehsildar. Upon receipt of the report, the Collector, Kabirdham, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 31.12.2011 observing that proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, were pending before the Tehsildar in respect of the petitioner’s alleged occupation of land in excess of the area granted on lease. Accordingly, the application filed by the respondent for cancellation of the lease was rejected. The Additional Collector further observed that the issue of encroachment could be considered and decided after receipt of a spot inspection report from the Revenue Inspector regarding the alleged occupation of land in excess of the leased area. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order dated 07.07.2020. However, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, the concerned District Collector is directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the State and thereafter pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Since the petition has remained pending since the year 2020, the concerned authority is directed to 6 conclude the proceedings and decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such decision is taken, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner without first affording him due opportunity of hearing. 9. The petitioner is directed to submit a copy of this order before the concerned authority within a period of one week from today, and upon receipt thereof, the concerned authority shall proceed to consider and decide the matter within the aforesaid period. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Madhurima