1 2026:CGHC:16853 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4148 of 2021 Ajaykant Khunte S/o Shri Lachhiram Khunte Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Raseda, P.H. No. 16 (New No. 17), Tahsil Akaltara, District Janj- gir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tahsildar / Naib Tahsildar Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattis- garh. 3 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Raseda, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Patwari Village Raseda P.C. No. 16 (New No. 17), R.I.C. Akaltara , Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 13.04.2026 1 By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the validity and legality of the revenue notices dated 08.01.2021 and 15.01.2021 issued by respondent No. 3 – Naib Tahsildar, which are wholly arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to law, inasmuch as the said notices neither disclose any case number YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.15 10:15:17 +0530 2 nor indicate initiation of any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. It is contended that the impugned action has been undertaken in blatant violation of due process of law, and therefore, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions from this Hon’ble Court, particularly for protection of his leased land granted under Section 20 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Code, 1959’). The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal and thereafter allow the petition. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the impugned Notices dated 8/1/2021 and 15/1/2021 (Ann. P/6) issued by the respondent No. 3 holding the same to be illegal and without procedure. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to restrain the Respondents Authorities removing the Petitioner from his leased land granted by then Government, without any due procedure. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to grant any other relief or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith cost of the instant litigation, in the interest of justice.” 3 2 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner was granted a lease of land bearing Khasra No. 527/1, admeasuring 900 square feet, under the Chief Minister’s Population Scheme by the competent authority, namely the Tahsildar/Naib Tahsildar, Akaltara, vide order dated 16.04.2017 in Case No. 37/A-66/2016- 17. Pursuant thereto, a certificate conferring land ownership rights over abadi land in a rural area was issued in favour of the petitioner, and the said land was to be held in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘the Code, 1959’). 3 Thereafter, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Raseda issued a possession certificate dated 27.05.2017 in favour of the petitioner, thereby placing him in lawful possession of the leased land. The lease was granted for residential purposes with specific conditions, including construction of a house within a stipulated period. In compliance thereof, the petitioner constructed a residential house and has been residing therein peacefully with his family. 4 Subsequently, the respondent authorities, particularly the Patwari, made an entry in the encroachment register on 25.02.2020 treating the petitioner’s land as encroached land and submitted a report along with a map and spot inspection panchnama to the Tahsildar. However, the said documents allegedly suffer from 4 serious irregularities, including absence of signature and proper authentication, thereby rendering them doubtful. 5 Thereafter, the petitioner received certain notices purportedly issued by the Naib Tahsildar, which neither contained any case number nor bore the name or signature of the issuing authority. Apprehending coercive action and alleging harassment at the hands of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted lawful leasehold rights over the land in question by the competent authority under a government scheme, and such rights are protected under Section 20 of the Code, 1959. It is contended that the petitioner is in settled possession of the land and has fulfilled all conditions of the lease by constructing a residential house within the stipulated time and residing therein with his family. It is further submitted that the subsequent action of the respondent authorities in treating the said land as encroached is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The entry made in the encroachment register and the report submitted by the Patwari are ex facie defective, as the same do not bear proper signatures or authentication, thereby rendering them unreliable and fabricated. 7 Learned counsel also contends that the impugned notices issued to the petitioner are not valid notices in the eyes of law, as they do 5 not contain any case number, nor do they bear the name or signature of the issuing authority. Such notices, it is argued, are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure, and appear to have been issued with an oblique motive to harass the petitioner. 8 It is further submitted that the petitioner’s leasehold rights cannot be nullified or interfered with except in accordance with due process of law. Any action affecting the petitioner’s possession or structure must be preceded by proper proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code or other applicable laws, which has not been followed in the present case. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary, malafide and unsustainable in law, and therefore, the impugned notices and proceedings deserve to be quashed, with a direction to the respondents to protect the petitioner’s possession over the land and the residential house constructed thereon. 9 Per contra, learned State counsel has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that the impugned communications are merely in the nature of notices and no final adverse order has been passed against the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner, instead of availing the efficacious and statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Code, 1959, has directly 6 approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, which is not maintainable in law. Learned State counsel submits that if the petitioner claims to be holding a valid lease/patta in respect of the land in question, it is open for him to appear before the competent revenue authority and place all relevant documents in support of his claim. The competent authority, being the fact-finding authority, is best suited to examine the factual aspects of the matter, including the validity of the alleged encroachment entry and the petitioner’s claim of lawful possession. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 10 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to their rival submissions. I have also carefully perused the pleadings, documents annexed therewith, and the material available on record. 11 From a perusal of the impugned notices, it prima facie appears that the petitioner has been treated as an encroacher over the land in question and proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the revenue authorities. However, it is equally evident that the petitioner claims to have been granted leasehold rights over the said land by a competent authority under a Government scheme and asserts his lawful possession on the strength of such grant. 7 12 In view of the nature of controversy involved, which essentially pertains to disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner’s title/possession and the correctness of the encroachment proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that such issues are more appropriately adjudicated by the competent revenue authority in accordance with law. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the action of the respondents, has an adequate and efficacious remedy of approaching the concerned Tahsildar/Naib Tahsildar by filing a detailed reply along with all relevant documents in support of his claim. 13 Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Tahsildar/Naib Tahsildar within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and submit a comprehensive reply along with all supporting documents, including the lease/patta and any other material relied upon by him. Upon such appearance, the concerned Tahsildar shall consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other affected parties. 14 Considering the submission of the petitioner that he was granted patta/lease vide order dated 16.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) and further taking into account that an interim protection was operating in his favour since 08.10.2021, it is directed that, till the final 8 decision is taken by the competent authority, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in respect of the land in question. The interim protection granted earlier shall continue to remain in operation till such adjudication. 15 The concerned Tahsildar/Naib Tahsildar, Akaltara is further directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of appearance of the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 16 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. 17 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 18 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh