Allowed¶26

Durjan Ram Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Mar 2025WPC/1589/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 1589 of 2017; Durjan Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & others; decided 24.03.2025 by Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. (Single Bench). Encroachment notice dated 12.05.2017 by Naib Tahsildar, Khairagarh regarding Khasra No. 511 (180 sq m government land) quashed after Revenue Inspector report (Annexure A-1, 30.11.2024) and Naib Tahsildar memo (17.01.2025) found no encroachment, verified by the State. Petition allowed; no costs. No statutes or precedent cases cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned notice dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P-1); no order as to cost(s). ¶26

Durjan Ram Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

SUNITA GOSWAMI

¶3

Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.03.24 18:20:06 +0530

¶4

2025:CGHC:14117

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 1589 of 2017

¶8

Durjan Ram Sahu S/o Banauram Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Gataparkala, District Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur (CG)

¶12

2 - The Collector, District Rajnandgaon(CG)

¶13

3- The Naib Tahsildar, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner :Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate For Respondents/State :Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate

¶16

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board

¶17

24.03.2025

¶18

1. By virtue of this petition, the Petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the notice dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P-1), issued by Respondent No.3- Naib Tahsildar, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, whereby, it was observed that the Petitioner has encroached 12 x 15 = 180 square metre of government land, bearing Khasra No. 511 and

¶19

¶20

accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to remove the alleged encroachment.

¶21

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has purchased the land bearing Khasra No.545 admeasuring 0.016 hectare, under a registered deed of sale dated 12.01.2000 from one Dr. Pukhraj Bafna and obtained the possession of it and, has never encroached the alleged government land as mentioned in the notice impugned dated 12.05.2017. It is contended further that the alleged notice has been issued without conducting any inquiry and/or without providing any opportunity of hearing, therefore, it is bad in law. It is contended further that after purchasing the land bearing Khasra No.545 admeasuring 0.016 hectare, an application was made before the Tahsildar, Khairagarh for the demarcation of his land, where, the Revenue Inspector, Thelkadih, Tahsil, Khairagarh had submitted its report (Annexure A-1) on 30.11.2024 before the Tahsildar, Khairagarh, informing that the Petitioner has not encroached the alleged government land and, similar was the information submitted by Naib Tahsildar, Khairagarh to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Khairagarh vide its memo, dated 17.01.2025. It is, therefore, contended that the alleged impugned notice (Annexure P-1) be quashed.

¶22

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/State submits that after receiving the said memo, issued on 17.01.2025 by the Naib Tahsildar, Khairagarh, the same was verified and, it was found that the Petitioner was not in encroachment of the alleged government land.

¶23

¶24

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers carefully.

¶25

5. From perusal of the aforesaid contention of the parties, it thus, appears that although, the notice impugned dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) was issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, directing the Petitioner to remove the alleged government land, but, from perusal of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector before the Tahsildar, Khairagarh, duly verified by the Respondents that the Petitioner has not encroached the alleged government land. The Petitioner is, thus, not in encroachment of the alleged government land, as mentioned in the impugned notice dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P-1).

¶26

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) is, hereby quashed.

¶27

No order as to cost(s).

¶28

Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶29

sunita

Durjan Ram Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durjan Ram Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teerath Bati Kadiyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manindra Kumar Soni Vs Deputy General Manager

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congres Vs Bhagwat Prasad Dubey

Animesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs Registrar Co. Operative Societies

Suresh Prasad Tripathi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh