1 2026:CGHC:2335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2390 of 2024 1. Kamal Narayan Shukla S/o Late Ramlal Shukla Aged About 83 Years R/o Village - Temri, Tahsil - Navagarh, Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner- Durg Division Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Tahsildar-Berla Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.) 4. Arun Kumar Shukla S/o Dilipram Shukla Aged About 67 Years R/o Village -Temri, Tahsil - Nandgaht, Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.) 5. Narendra Shukla S/o Dilipram Shukla Aged About 71 Years R/o Village - Temri, Tahsil - Nandgahat, Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aashutosh Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 and 5 : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 14.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. RN/23/4/A- MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.01.15 18:06:42 +0530 2 68/389/2023 by which the revision under Section 50 as well as application under Section 52 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 for stay of the execution of the order and also challenged the order passed by the Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner by which the application filed by the petitioner against the notice issued by the Tehsildar for removing the encroachment has been rejected. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was allotted Mukhyamantri Abadi Patta Vitran Yojna of Khasra No. 563 area, 30 square meter and as per the boundary, there is street in the North, house of Ramakant in the South, house of Narendra in the East and street in the West and accordingly, he has occupied that land. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the disputed property the petitioner living their for last 60-70 years, as such, he has acquired peaceful possession, therefore, issuance of notice is illegal and against the Patta allotted to him. It has also been contended that neither the Tehsildar nor the Sub-Divisional Officer, or the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have taken into consideration that he has already acquired the Patta of the land, therefore, he has absolute right over the land in question unless and until the lease is denied by the State, the Tehsildar has no authority to issue the notice for removing the encroachment as it is not illegal encroachment, but it is a permissible and under the authority of State only he possessed the said property and would pray for quashing of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and other Revenue authorities. 3 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and 5 vehemently objected and would submit that petitioner has encroached the Government land whereas the plot which has been allotted to him under the Mukhyamantri Awas Yojna is altogether different and he has never placed on record any lease granted by the State in regard to present property. He would further submit that the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsildar and the Commissioner or Revenue Board is neither suffers from perversity or illegality warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the proceeding initiated by the Tehsildar is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court as the petitioner is unable to place on record any lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the State, unless and until the lease in favour of the petitioner to have incorporated the land been classified as abadi land, he cannot claim any right over the property though he is living their for more than 60-70 years, thus he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Mr. Pandey, on instruction has placed on record the relevant documents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival submissions placed on record by the parties. 7. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceeding drawn by the Tehsildar and subsequent dismissal of the appeal or revision by the authorities is illegal and suffers from perversity is being considered by this Court. The learned Board of 4 Revenue and all the revenue authority in their impugned order has categorically recorded its finding that no documents to substantiate that any lease has been granted by the State and the petitioner is unable to place on record to contradict such finding to record the finding by this Court that these findings are suffers from perversity or illegality by placing on record the documents containing title over the property. As such, in absence of any better title by way of lease or by any other instruments by which the title of the immovable property can be conferred upon the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that neither the Tehsildar nor the revenue authorities, Sub- Divisional Officer or the Commissioner have acted in violation of any rules, provisions of law, as such, the writ petition sans merit liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 8. The interim order dated 02.05.2024 passed by this Court deserved to be vacated and accordingly it is vacated. No order as to cost. The dismissal of the writ petition will not restrain the petitioner to claim lease from the State in accordance with law. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish