1 2026:CGHC:16551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1628 of 2026 1 - Jageshwar Prasad Shrivas S/o Late Mohit Ram Aged About 58 Years Occupation - Farmer, R/o Village Sendha, Post Nagpur, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner (Revenue) Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar Nagpur, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Sonkunwar W/o Shyamlal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sendha, Post Nagpur, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 7 - Shyamlal S/o Thakurdin Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Sendha, Post - Nagpur, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned premeditated notice cum order (Annexure-P/1) which has been issued by the respondent no. 5 without initiating proceeding after numbering the case under Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain and prohibit the respondents from taking any coercive action, harassment, or adverse proceedings on the basis of impugned premeditated notice cum order in respect of land in question of petitioner. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass order for giving damage cost of construction of house of petitioner against the respondent no. 5, 6 & 7 in accordance with law. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The facts of the case, as borne out from the pleadings and documents placed on record, are that the land bearing Khasra No. 87/1 admeasuring 1.214 hectares, situated at Village Sendha, 3 Tahsil Nagpur, is recorded as Government land. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of respondent No. 6, claiming possession over the said land, executed a sale transaction in favour of the petitioner in the year 2009. On the basis of the said transaction, the petitioner asserts his right. It is further pleaded that pursuant to the said transaction, the petitioner came into possession of the land and has been continuously occupying the same. The petitioner has constructed a residential house over the said land and is residing therein with his family. Due to such possession, the petitioner’s name has been recorded in the revenue records as an encroacher. The petitioner has further averred that respondent No. 6, with malafide intention, submitted a complaint before respondent No. 5 seeking removal of the petitioner’s house constructed on the said land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that acting under the influence of respondents No. 6 and 7, respondent No. 5 issued a premeditated notice-cum- order directing demolition/removal of the petitioner’s house from the land in question. According to the petitioner, the said action is arbitrary and motivated. The petitioner has also stated that the house in question is situated adjacent to the Chirmiri–Nagpur main road, whereas the remaining Government land, which is allegedly under the possession of the husband of respondent No. 6, is located behind the petitioner’s house. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 is insisting upon demolition of the petitioner’s 4 house with a view to extend undue benefit to respondents No. 6 and 7. It is further the case of the petitioner that prior to construction, he had submitted an application before respondent No. 5 seeking permission for construction of the house. Lastly, it has been averred that the petitioner has been continuously approaching the respondent authorities for regularization/settlement of the land in question in view of his long-standing possession, in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Revenue Book Circular. However, despite such representations, including application dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure-P/6), the respondent authorities have not taken any steps for regularization and are instead proceeding to demolish the petitioner’s house, allegedly with malafide intent, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a notice dated 27.03.2026 has been issued by the Tahsildar, whereby it has been stated that in the event the petitioner continues with the alleged illegal construction, the same shall be removed by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, and further action including registration of FIR and imposition of penalty may also be initiated against the petitioner. It is contended that in the said notice, the petitioner has been described as an encroacher who has allegedly encroached 5 upon Government land and is raising construction thereon. Learned counsel submits that after receipt of the aforesaid notice dated 27.03.2026, the petitioner has not carried out any further construction and whatever construction exists has already been raised prior to issuance of the said notice. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent authorities be directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notice-cum-order for demolition/removal of the petitioner’s house has been issued by respondent No. 5 without initiating proper proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code by duly registering a case and affording opportunity of hearing, and thus the same is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It is argued that the impugned action is premeditated and has been taken with malafide intention to extend undue benefit to respondents No. 6 and 7. It is also contended that the complaint made by respondent No. 6 against the petitioner is motivated, inasmuch as the remaining Government land situated behind the petitioner’s house is in possession of respondents No. 6 and 7, and in order to secure advantage over the front portion of land adjacent to the main road, a false complaint has been lodged seeking demolition of the petitioner’s house. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the land in question since the year 2009 and has constructed a residential 6 house therein, where he is residing along with his family members. It is submitted that the petitioner has acquired possession of the land from the previous encroacher, and therefore, the period of possession of the petitioner deserves to be reckoned from the time the previous occupant was in possession of the said land. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar and to cooperate with the authorities in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not own any other residential accommodation and the house in question is the sole shelter available to him and his family. It is further argued that the petitioner has already approached the competent authorities for settlement/regularization of the land in his favour in accordance with law, considering his long-standing possession. However, instead of considering such request, the respondent authorities are proceeding to demolish the house of the petitioner under the influence of private respondents. Learned counsel submits that if the impugned action is allowed to be carried out, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any manner. It is further contended that though the petitioner claims to have purchased the land from the husband of respondent No. 6, the said respondent has now turned around and lodged complaint seeking removal of the petitioner’s house, which itself reflects malafide intent. Lastly, 7 it is submitted that the action of the respondents is in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the proposed demolition would render the petitioner and his family shelterless. It is thus urged that being a welfare State, the respondent authorities are duty bound to act fairly and protect the rights of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is an unauthorized encroacher over Government land and has no legal right, title or interest over the land in question. It is contended that the petitioner has illegally occupied the land and raised construction thereupon without any lawful authority, and therefore, the competent revenue authorities are fully justified in initiating action against him in accordance with law. Learned State counsel further submits that the notice dated 27.03.2026 has been issued strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, with the object of removing encroachment from Government land. It is argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in issuance of the said notice, rather it is only a step initiating due process of law by calling upon the petitioner to respond to the allegations of encroachment. It is also contended that the petitioner has an adequate opportunity to submit his reply to the 8 notice and to participate in the proceedings before the competent authority, wherein all his grievances and claims can be duly considered. Without availing such statutory remedy and without participating in the proceedings, the petitioner has prematurely approached this Court, which is not permissible in law. Learned State counsel further submits that the impugned notice is in the nature of a preliminary/final notice under the statutory scheme and any order that may be passed pursuant thereto is appealable under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. In view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is thus submitted that the action initiated by the respondent authorities is lawful, bona fide and in furtherance of statutory duties to remove encroachments from Government land, and no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the land bearing Khasra No. 87/1 is recorded as Government land. The revenue record itself reflects the status of the petitioner as an encroacher over the said land. Thus, prima facie, the petitioner does not have any legal title over the land in question and his possession cannot be said to be lawful. However, this Court also takes note of the manner in which the 9 impugned notice dated 27.03.2026 has been issued by the competent authority. 6. From a perusal of the said notice, it appears that along with proposing action for removal of encroachment under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the authority has also indicated that coercive measures such as registration of FIR and imposition of penalty would be taken against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, at the stage of issuance of notice, such observations and directions are premature and not in consonance with the settled principles of law. 7. It is trite that before taking any adverse action affecting the rights of a person, the authorities are required to follow due process of law, which necessarily includes affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The petitioner ought to be granted an opportunity to submit his reply, produce relevant documents in support of his claim, and to put forth his case before the competent authority. Only thereafter, the authority is required to consider the matter in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In the present case, although proceedings under Section 248 of the Code appear to have been initiated, the course adopted by the authority in incorporating coercive consequences at the notice stage itself does not appear to be justified. The authority must first adjudicate the issue of 10 encroachment after granting due opportunity to the petitioner, and only thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner, it is directed that the concerned authority shall first provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, permit him to file reply along with relevant documents, and thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law. A final order shall be passed by the competent authority after due consideration of the material placed on record. Till such final order is passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the proceedings and to appear before the competent authority as and when required. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge