1 2026:CGHC:18704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4920 of 2021 Smt. Anjana Shriwas W/o Tikaram Aged About 35 Years R/o Vill-Jarve, Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal Water Management, Janjgir Division, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir, Canal Branch Sub Division No. 1, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- 10.1 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS restraining the respondents not to interfere with the possession of 2 the petitioner and the proceeding initiated on the basis of notice dated 15.11.2021 may also be quashed. 10.2 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice. 3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No. 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Canal Branch, Sub-Division No. 1, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) issued a notice (Annexure P-1) dated 15.11.2021 to the petitioner alleging therein that she had encroached upon 1099.33 square feet of government land belonging to the Irrigation Department; consequently, she was directed to remove the said encroachment, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against her in accordance with law, for which she herself would be solely responsible. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 3 has no authority to issue the such notice (Annexure P-1), as such, notice (Annexure P-1) dated 15.11.2021 is illegal and bad in law, hence, the same may be quashed by allowing the instant writ petition. 5. Counsel for the respondents has filed its reply. 6. Counsel for the respondents while referring to its reply would submit that petitioner has encroached upon the government land, which has been allotted in favour of Irrigation Department, therefore, such notice has been issued. He further submits that a direction has been given to the petitioner only to remove her encroachment, else appropriate proceeding shall be initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law, for which she herself would be responsible. He further submits that an enquiry was also conducted by concerned Tahsildar, who submitted detailed report to Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa stating aforesaid facts. He further submits that vide 3 notice (Annexure P-1) dated 15.11.2021, no order has been passed, rather the petitioner has merely been requested to remove her encroachment, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the contents of the notice dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) reveals that the said notice has been issued to the petitioner stating therein that she has encroached upon the government land belonging to the Irrigation Department, therefore, she has merely been informed to remove her encroachment, else, appropriate proceeding shall be initiated against her in accordance with law, to which, the petitioner herself would be responsible. 9. Aforesaid contents of notice (Annexure P-1) does not show that any order has been passed against the petitioner by respondent No. 3, rather she has merely been warned to remove her encroachment, else, appropriate proceeding shall be taken initiated against her in accordance with law, to which, the petitioner herself would be solely responsible, as such, contents of notice (Annexure P-1) does not show any order under the law has been passed against the petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain instant petition warranting interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s). 11. Consequently, Interim relief granted by this Court on 03.12.2021 stands vacated. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.04.25 10:57:48 +0530 4