1 2026:CGHC:16807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2866 of 2021 1 - Surendra Nag, S/o Mr. Mahesh Nag, Aged About 35 Years R/o Jawahar Ward Kanker Police Station Kanker, Tahsil Kanker, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Nagriya Prashashan And Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District Uttar Baster Kanker. 3 - Naib Tahsildar (Nazul), Kanker District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nagar Palika Parishad, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2911 of 2021 1 - Dinesh Nag S/o Mr. Shatrughan Nag Aged About 38 Years R/o Jawahar Ward Kanker Police Station Kanker , Tahsil Kanker District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagriya Prashashan And Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya , Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - Naib Tahsildar (Nazul) Kanker , Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nagar Palika Parishad Through Its Chief Municipal Officer , Nagar Palika Prishad Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Prishad Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these 3 cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 2866/2021 (Surendra Nag vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “i) quash/set-aside the notice Annexure P/3 and notice dated Annexure P/4, in the interest of justice. ii) direct the respondents not to disturb the possession of petitioner. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case and and in the interest of justice. The cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner belongs to the Below Poverty Line category and has been residing at the present location since the time of his forefathers, having inherited the house by succession, and is presently living with his family in a small residential structure constructed at Jawahar Ward, Kanker, District Kanker; that the petitioner has been continuously paying property tax and other applicable taxes under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, and an electricity 4 connection has also existed over the said property for several decades. As per the petitioner’s information and newspaper reports, the respondents are proposing to construct a Congress Bhawan at Jawahar Ward and, with such intent, are attempting to evict the petitioner by any means, for which copies of newspaper clippings are filed that in this background, Respondent No. 5 initially issued a notice dated 15.02.2021 alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon a “med” (embankment) near Dadiya Talab by constructing a house in violation of Section 223 of the aforesaid Act, to which the petitioner submitted that no encroachment had been made and that he has been residing on the property along with his family since ancestral times. Thereafter Respondent No. 3 issued another notice, without a clear date and in a printed format lacking proper particulars, directing appearance on 25.06.2021 and alleging encroachment, which is contradictory to the earlier notice. The petitioner has continued to pay property tax and other dues to Respondent No. 5 and the electricity connection over the suit property stands in the name of the petitioner; that Section 223 of the Act pertains to obstruction on streets, whereas the petitioner’s house is not constructed on any street or road, rendering the notices illegal and inapplicable; that the respondents, in order to facilitate construction of the proposed Congress Bhawan, are attempting to dispossess the petitioner on untenable grounds; that the provisions of Sections 187-A and 187-C of the Act provide for 5 compounding of alleged unauthorized constructions; and that the respondents are presently threatening the petitioner and his family members with demolition of the residential structure at any moment with the aid of police authorities and machinery such as JCB. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in settled possession of the disputed land and that the land in question is not situated upon or constructed over the bund of the pond; hence, the impugned notice is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that, as no coercive or adverse action has been taken against the petitioner till date, the present petition has, to that extent, become infructuous. Learned counsel further contends that the respondent authorities have not initiated any stringent or adverse proceedings against the petitioner thus far; however, in the event any action is proposed or taken in future, the authorities may be directed to duly consider the petitioner’s application, take into account his reply, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the aforesaid submissions and contentions advanced by the petitioner, contending that the reliefs sought are misconceived and untenable in law, and submits that the actions of the respondent authorities are in accordance with the 6 applicable legal provisions and do not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, which appear to be fair, reasonable, and justifiable, these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in the event any cause of action arises in the future, particularly in light of the fact that no action has been taken by the respondent authorities till date. It is further directed that, in case the respondents propose to initiate any action against the petitioner, they shall first issue a fresh and proper notice and thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law, ensuring that the petitioner is afforded a full, fair, and effective opportunity of hearing before any adverse decision is taken. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat