1 2026:CGHC:20443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3858 of 2022 1 - Surendra Kumar Verma S/o Late Kejuramji Verma (Freedom Figher) Aged About 81 Years R/o Village Jaroda, P.O. Tarra, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Revenue And Disaster Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Officer (Land Acquisition) Dharsiva, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Dharsiva Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Gram Panchayat Through Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jaroda, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Janpad Panchayat Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharsiva, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State :- Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 01.05.2026 1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions against the respondents with regard to alleged illegal encroachment and construction over her private land without acquisition and payment of compensation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner and in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 213 admeasuring 0.101 hectare and Khasra No. 214 admeasuring 1.335 hectare situated at Village Jaroda, District Raipur. It is submitted that the said property was purchased by the petitioner’s grandfather and ever since then the family of the petitioner has been in continuous possession. It is further the case of the petitioner that during the Covid-19 period, respondent No. 6, with the financial assistance of respondent No. 7, illegally encroached upon a portion of the petitioner’s land and proceeded to construct a “Chabutra” over it without any acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation. The petitioner claims to have made several representations before the concerned authorities, and even a spot inspection was conducted, wherein it was reported that Bhumi Pujan had been performed for the construction. However, 3 despite repeated complaints and representations, no effective action has been taken by the authorities. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “I The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue appropriate writ/orders/direction to the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner and direct the respondent no. 3 to return the vacant and clear possession of the property situate at Khasra Number 213 rakba 0101 hectare and Khasra number 214 rakba 1.335 Hectare at Village Jaroda, Distt. Raipur CG. II The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue appropriate writ/orders/direction to the respondents, to intiated, acquisition proceeding and compensation be paid to the petitioner under the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. III The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue appropriate writ/orders/direction to the respondents to pay the compensation alongwith an interest @ 18 per annum to the petitioner before using the land of the petitioner. IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in raising construction over the private land of the 4 petitioner without following due process of law is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the land of the petitioner has neither been acquired under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, nor has any compensation been paid. Despite this, the respondents have proceeded to utilize the land for alleged public purposes. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is an aged person of about 81 years, has been continuously approaching the authorities, but her grievances have not been redressed. Hence, this Court may direct the respondents to remove the encroachment and/or initiate acquisition proceedings and pay due compensation. Learned counsel further submits that a “Mandap” has been constructed over the private land of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat with the aid and assistance of the respondent authorities; however, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner till date. It is thus contended that once construction has been raised over the land of the petitioner, the respondents are legally bound to either restore possession or grant compensation in accordance with law. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law. It is submitted that if any construction has been raised, the same would be examined by the competent authority and necessary 5 steps shall be taken as per law. Learned State counsel further submits that the construction of the “Mandap” was carried out with the consent of the petitioner for the benefit of the villagers. It is contended that the said construction was undertaken pursuant to a proposal made by the villagers and executed by the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that if the petitioner had any grievance with regard to the proposed construction, she ought to have approached the concerned Gram Panchayat for redressal at the appropriate stage, i.e., prior to the construction being raised. Therefore, at this stage, the petition may not warrant interference. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the present petition is disposed of while granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned Gram Panchayat for redressal of his grievance. Upon such application being filed, the Gram Panchayat shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law after conducting proper demarcation of the land in question in the presence of the petitioner as well as the concerned villagers. 8. In the event it is found that the land of the petitioner has been utilized for construction, the Gram Panchayat shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 6 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha