Dismissed¶49

Agnu Prabhakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2025WPC/1618/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Removal of encroachment from Gram Panchayat/Government land; Section 56 Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993; Gram Panchayat Bundeli; Overhead Water Tank site; Khasra No.2180, village Bundeli, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund; SDM demolition memo 04.01.2022; revision dismissed by Additional Commissioner 15.03.2022; status quo order vacated; no leniency to encroachers; writ petition dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the Gram Panchayat has power and authority to pass a removal-of-encroachment order, which cannot be disputed; Gram Panchayat Bundeli rightly directed the petitioners to remove the encroachment on land earmarked for an Overhead Water Tank. ¶43

Agnu Prabhakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether, when the matter was pending/sub-judice before the Naib Tehsildar Pithora, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was empowered to issue notice/direction for removal of encroachment, and whether the Additional Commissioner erred in dismissing the revision without considering this. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The Gram Panchayat sought aid of the revenue authorities; the Naib Tehsildar issued notice and the SDM directed removal based on the Gram Panchayat's resolution, and neither can be faulted; consequently the revisional order of the Additional Commissioner is in accordance with law and no leniency can be granted to the encroacher petitioners.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

¶43

Key takeaways

On spot inspection and panchnama, the petitioners were found to have illegally encroached upon the Government land of Gram Panchayat Bundeli reserved for construction of an Overhead Water Tank, and being encroachers they have no right over the land.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), Single Bench (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.), dismissed WPC No. 1618 of 2022 by order dated 08.04.2025. The petitioners challenged the order dated 15.03.2022 of the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur dismissing their revision against the memo dated 04.01.2022 of the SDM, Pithora directing removal of their alleged encroachment over Government land, Khasra No.2180 (Rakba 0.046 hectares), village Bundeli, reserved for construction of an Overhead Water Tank. Held: Gram Panchayat Bundeli had power under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 to pass the removal order; spot inspection and panchnama established the encroachment and the encroachers have no right over the land; the orders of the Naib Tehsildar, SDM and Additional Commissioner were in accordance with law; no leniency to encroachers. Consequences: interim (status quo) order since 31.03.2022 vacated; no order as to costs.

¶1

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.05.21 13:55:14 +0530

2025:CGHC:16415

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1618 of 2022

¶7

1 - Agnu Prabhakar, S/o Shri Sukhram Prabhakar, Aged About 55 Years,

¶8

2 - Suklal Prabhakar, S/o Shri Sonu Prabhakar, Aged About 50 Years,

¶9

3 - Nohar Prabhakar, S/o Shri Sukhi Prabhakar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Bundeli, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2 – Commissioner, Raipur Division, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) / Sub Divisional Magistrate Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5 - Tehsildar Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

6 - Gram Panchayat Bundeli, through its Secretary, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

(Cause-title	taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners	: Mr. SurfarajKhan, Advocate
For Respondent-State	: Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate
For Respondent No.6	: Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶21

08.04.2025

¶22

1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶23

¶24

2. By way of this instant petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur by which he has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners while confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pithora, District Mahasamund has confirmed the order of Gram Panchayat Bundeli for removal of encroachment made by the petitioners.

¶25

3. The petitioners have filed instant petition with the following relief(s):-

¶26

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s), by quashing the impugned order dated 15/03/2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by Learned Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, arising out of memo dated 04/01/2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Learned SDM Pithora.

¶27

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal.

¶28

10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. ”

¶29

4. Brief facts of the case projected by the petitioners are that respondent No.6, i.e. Gram Panchayat Bundeli has made a complaint to the Naib Tehsildar Pithora regarding illegal

¶30

¶31

encroachment made upon the Government land bearing Khasra No.2180, Rakba 0.046 Hectares, situated at village Bundeli, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The proceedings has been initiated by the Naib Tehsidar Pithora, however during pendency of the said proceeding, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pithora has issued a memo dated 04.01.2022 for demolition of house constructed by the petitioner upon the said Government land after encroaching the same. Against issuance of memo dated 04.01.2022, the petitioners have filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2022.

¶32

5. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶33

the order impugned is illegal and arbitrary as the learned Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction, which is vested upon the Naib Tehsildar, Pithora. He further submits that when the matter is sub-judice before Naib Tehsildar, Pithora, the SubDivisional Magistrate is not empowered to issue notice for removal of encroachment. It has been contended that when the same was challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, the learned Additional Commissioner has not considered this fact and without considering the said facts, impugned order has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been further contended that the impugned order suffers from basic illegality as the same has been passed in

¶34

¶35

contravention of the established principles of law, as such, the same needs to be quashed.

¶36

6. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned State counsel as well as Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 supported the impugned order and submits that the petitioners are illegal encroachers and without there being any authority of law, they have encroached upon the Government land, which has rightly been directed to be removed. They further submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, however, they were failed to explain the encroachment and respondent No.6 is competent to remove the encroachment under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, as such, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order, which warrants no interference. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has argued that the petitioners are habitual encrochers and they are continuously encroaching upon the Government land. The land in question is sanctioned for construction of Overhead Water Tank for the villagers and for that, the resolution has been passed and notice for removal of encroachment has already been issued. It has been submitted that the petitioners have not any right and title over the Government land and even if, they are in long possession, it cannot be given to them because the land in question has already been earmarked for construction of Overhead Water Tank.

¶37

¶38

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents annexed with the writ petition.

¶39

8. From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, it seems that upon receipt of complaint, the revenue authorities have submitted a report i.e. spot inspection and panchnama and it was found that the petitioners have illegally encroached upon the Government land of the Gram Panchayat, Bundeli, which is reserved for construction of Overhead Water Tank for the benefit of the villagers.

¶40

9. Prima facie , it was found that on the Government land, which has been earmarked for construction of Overhead Water Tank, the petitioners have encroached upon the same. The petitioners being encroachers are not having any right over the Government land. A resolution was passed against the petitioners because the power is vested upon the Gram Panchayat, Bundeli under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Gram Panchayat has already issued notice for removal of encroachment on 10.12.2021, however, instead of removing the same, the petitioners have contesting the case for an illegal encroachment.

¶41

10. From perusal of the impugned order, it is transpired that admittedly, the petitioners are encroachers and they have been encroached upon the Government land, in which the Gram

¶42

¶43

Panchayat Bundeli has passed a resolution for construction of Overhead Water Tank. As per Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the Gram Panchayat is having power and authority for passing removal order, which cannot be disputed.

¶44

11. It has been further reflected from the record that the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bundeli in order to remove encroachment has approached the revenue authorities for giving aid so that the illegal encroachment may be removed.

¶45

12. The time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has cautioned the encroachers for removal of their encroachment. From the perusal of panchanama, spot inspection, etc., it is apparent that the petitioners have encroached upon the Government land, which is earmarked for construction of Overhead Water Tank. The power is vested with the concerned Gram Panchayat under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and as such, the Gram Panchayat, Bundeli has rightly directed the petitioners to remove encroachment.

¶46

13. Insofar as the orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Pithora, District Mahasamund, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pithora, District Mahasamund as well as Additional Commissioner, Raipur Divsion, Raipur are concerned, the Gram Panchayat has sought necessary aid for removal of encroachment from the Naib Tehsildar, upon which, Naib Tehsildar has issued notice,

¶47

¶48

thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has also directed for removal of encroachment on the basis of resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Pithora, which also cannot be said to be faulted with, as such, the revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur is also in accordance with law. No leniency can be granted to the petitioners, who are encroachers and since 31.03.2022, there is an order of status quo operating in favour of the petitioners.

¶49

14. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶50

15. As a consequence thereof, interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated.

¶51

16. There shall be no order as to cost(s).

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶54

Yogesh

Agnu Prabhakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agnu Prabhakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumari Vs the Chhattisgarh State

Abdul Latif Rahmani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arif Memon Vs Union of India

Dhaneshwar Tandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mishrilal Markhande Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuvan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh