1 2026:CGHC:18576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1941 of 2026 Smt. Neelam Singh W/o Rajdev Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Bhala, Post Vijaynagar, Police Chowki Vijaynagar, Thana Ramanujganj , District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balrampur- Ramanujganj District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandarpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj , District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - Tehsildar , Ramanujganj , District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.04.24 11:06:55 +0530 2 (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 13/12/2019, whereby the recovery of Rs.9,20,312/- issued against the petitioner by the respondent No.3 as also to quash the recovery proceedings initiated against him by the concerned Tahsildar. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned recovery order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and the reply submitted by her has not been considered by the respondent authorities. She submits that the petitioner was neither made aware of the proceedings nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to her. Learned counsel further submits that no financial irregularity has been committed by the petitioner, as the amount in question was utilized with due approval of the competent authority. The impugned order is thus arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law, and deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that proceedings under Sections 89 and 90 of the C.G. Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 are pending consideration before the prescribed authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj. 3 The State counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the said authority and participate in the proceedings in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj shall take appropriate steps with regard to the recovery of the alleged misappropriation amount of Rs. 4,60,156/- and, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass a reasoned and speaking order after following due process of law. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE $. Bhilwar