1 2026:CGHC:15221 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1918 of 2021 1 - Vijay Kumar S/o Triveni Prasad Aged About 54 Years Caste-Jaiswal R/o Village-Ramgarh, Police Station And Tahsil-Sonhat, District-Koriya (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.). 2 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.). 3 - The Tahsildar, Sonhat District- Korea (C.G.). 4 - Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Through The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh, Tahsil- Sonhat, District-Korea (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner and call for the records pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondent State Authorities directing them to grant patta of the disputed property to the petitioners. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction to the respondent State Authorities directing them to stop the construction of the governmental building over the disputed property. 10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners are permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and belong to the Jaiswal caste, and have been residing therein since the time of their ancestors, i.e., for more than 50 years. The petitioners belong to 3 economically weaker sections and are living below the poverty line. The petitioners are in possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 151, 287, 291, 299, and 301, admeasuring 0.91, 0.40, 0.56, 0.59, and 0.64 hectares respectively, situated at Village Ramgarh, Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.), since the time of their ancestors for over 50 years, and it was their ancestors who made the said land cultivable and carried out agricultural activities thereon, although the land is recorded as Government land. The petitioners have no alternative place for shelter or livelihood and have constructed houses and sheds on the said land for residential and agricultural purposes. That the petitioners and their ancestors have, on several occasions, applied for grant of patta in respect of the said land; however, the competent authorities have failed to grant the same till date, whereas similarly situated persons have been granted pattas over Government land. That recently, the respondent authorities have commenced construction of a Government building over the disputed land and have started demolishing the houses and sheds of the petitioners without issuing any prior notice or following due process of law, thereby seriously prejudicing their rights and interests. That the petitioners are legally entitled to grant of patta, yet the same has not been provided despite repeated applications, and the petitioners and their families are presently residing on the said land and are wholly dependent upon it for their livelihood. That the impugned action of the respondents in raising construction over 4 land in long-standing possession of the petitioners is violative of their fundamental right to shelter and to live with dignity, as guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and illegal, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition. That it is further submitted that although the petitioners are in possession of Khasra No. 287, there exists sufficient adjacent Government land where the proposed construction could be carried out; relevant revenue records and maps evidencing the petitioners’ possession. That both the Central and State Governments have implemented various schemes for providing housing to poor and landless persons, however, in the present case, the respondents are seeking to forcibly evict the petitioners without providing any alternative accommodation, which is contrary to settled legal principles and the duties of a welfare State. It is further submitted that other similarly situated persons continue to occupy Government land, yet the petitioners alone have been targeted, which is wholly discriminatory. That earlier, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 2664 of 2020, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.12.2020 with liberty to file a fresh, properly constituted petition. Hence, the present petition is being preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in continuous, peaceful and settled possession of the land in question for the past five decades, during which period they have constructed residential houses along with ancillary 5 structures such as a badi, and have been residing thereon with their family members. It is further submitted that the petitioners have thus established a longstanding and legitimate occupation over the said land. However, in a recent development, the State Government authorities, without following due process of law and without affording any adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, have demolished a portion of their constructed premises for the purpose of establishing a Primary Health Centre. Aggrieved by such arbitrary and high-handed action on the part of the State authorities, which has caused substantial prejudice and hardship to the petitioners, they have approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present petition seeking appropriate relief. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and contends that the petitioners are nothing but unauthorized encroachers over the land in question, which undisputedly belongs to the Government. It is further submitted that, being encroachers, the petitioners do not possess any legal right, title, or interest over the said land so as to seek protection from this Hon’ble Court, and therefore, no indulgence or leniency can be extended in their favour. Learned counsel emphasizes that the action undertaken by the State authorities in removing the encroachment and proceeding with the construction of the Primary Health Centre is lawful, justified, and in furtherance of public interest, aimed at providing essential healthcare facilities to 6 the local populace. As such, it is contended that the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a careful perusal of the record, it prima facie appears that the petitioners have raised construction of a residential house over the land in question and have been residing there for a considerable length of time. It is further borne out from the record that the petitioners, asserting their long-standing possession, have taken steps to regularize their occupation by applying for the grant of a patta (lease) before the competent authority. In this regard, the petitioners have specifically averred that they submitted an application dated 11.08.2020 to the concerned Collector seeking allotment of lease rights, which, as per their submission, is still pending consideration. However, during the pendency of the said application, the authorities proceeded to carry out demolition over a portion of the constructed premises, giving rise to the present grievance of the petitioners. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in particular taking into account that the petitioners’ application seeking grant of lease (patta) is still pending consideration before the competent authority, coupled with the fact that the petitioners appear to be in long-standing possession of the land in question—an aspect prima facie substantiated by the photographs placed on record—and further bearing in mind 7 that this Court, by its earlier order dated 07.06.2021, had directed the concerned respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners with regard to their dispossession, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the concerned Collector to consider and decide the petitioners’ application strictly in accordance with law. It is further directed that such decision shall be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitoner. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and has refrained from adjudicating upon the rights and contentions of the parties. The concerned Collector shall, therefore, remain at full liberty to examine the matter independently on its own merits and pass an appropriate, reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. It is further directed that, before arriving at any such decision, the Collector shall afford due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice, and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with the applicable legal provisions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat