Yogeshwar Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jun 2025WPC/2737/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment on government land; notice under Section 302, Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam Act, 1956; alternative remedy of appeal under Section 403; Kh. No. 406/2010 Govt. land versus private Khasra No. 80/35 of Sameer Khan; unsigned sale agreement loses sanctity; municipal tax payment creates no ownership; demarcation report participation; 80-feet road construction Birgaon; 12 weeks to vacate and hand over possession; Municipal Corporation Birgaon; Ravanbhata.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner has not adduced any documentary evidence showing title over the disputed land; mere payment of municipal taxes does not establish or create ownership; and the sale agreement/deed copy for Kh. No. 80/35 bears no signature of the seller Sameer Khan, thereby losing its sanctity and being of no help to the petitioner. ¶¶37

Yogeshwar Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.6 under Section 302 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam Act, 1956, directing removal of the petitioner's construction on Kh. No. 406/2010 (Govt. land), Ward No. 27, Municipal Corporation Birgaon, ought to be set aside. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

Considering the documents adduced by the petitioner and the overall facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to remove the illegal encroachment, vacate the premises and hand over possession to the respondent authorities within 12 weeks; the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take necessary action if the illegal encroachment is not removed within 12 weeks.

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPC No. 2737 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh, decided 03/06/2025 by Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) challenging a notice dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Building Officer, Municipal Corporation Birgaon (respondent No.6) under Section 302 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam Act, 1956, directing removal of the petitioner's house on Kh. No. 406/2010 (Govt. land), Ward No. 27, Birgaon, Ravanbhata. The petitioner claimed 24 years' residence, advance sale consideration paid to Sameer Khan for 552 sq. feet of private Khasra No. 80/35, timely payment of electricity and municipal charges, and reliance on B-1 revenue records; counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 contended the petition was untenable in view of the appeal remedy under Section 403 of the Act and that the petitioner had participated in a demarcation proceeding while an 80-feet road work was under way. Held: the petitioner produced no documentary evidence of title; payment of municipal taxes creates no ownership; and the sale agreement copy bore no signature of seller Sameer Khan, losing its sanctity. Petition disposed of with direction to the petitioner to remove the illegal encroachment, vacate and hand over possession within 12 weeks, failing which the authorities were left free to take necessary action.

2025:CGHC:22490

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2737 of 2025

¶6

Yogeshwar Chandrakar, S/o Late Chowa Lal Chandrakar, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Ward No. 27 (Old 24), Mathpara, Jai Budhadev Ward, Birgaon, Tahsil-Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

Joint Director Town And Country Planning, Regional Office, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Commissioner Municipal Corporation Birgaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

Zone Commissioner Birgaon, Municipal Corporation Birgaon District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

Building Officer Municipal Corporation Birgaon, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Birgaon, Disrict Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶16

Tahsildar Dharsiwa/ Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner

¶19

: Mr. Jitendra Dhruv and Mr. Shashikant Chauhan Advocates

¶20

¶21

For : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Govt. Advocate

¶22

Respondents/State

¶23

For Respondent Nos. : Mr. S. Gupta, Advocate. 3, 5 and 6

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,

¶25

(Order on Board)

¶26

03/06/2025

¶27

1 . With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶28

2 . The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P- 1) issued by respondent No.6, whereby the petitioner has been instructed to remove the construction (House) on Kh. No. 406/2010 (Govt.land) situated at Ward No.27, Municipal Corporation – Birgaon, Ravanbhata.

¶29

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been residing in the land in question for last 24 years and the impugned notice (Annexure P-1) under Section 302 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) has been issued against the petitioner for vacating the premises citing it to be the government land, whereas the petitioner is in possession of Khasra No.80/35 which is private land of Sameer Khan, and advance sale consideration has been given to Sameer Khan for purchasing 552 sq. feet from above Kh. No.80/35 and have also prepared a sale agreement deed for purchasing the

¶30

¶31

same from Sameer Khan. Learned counsel further submits that the notice which has been issued against the petitioner is of Kh. No.406/10. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent No.6 and others have not issued notice to actual owner i.e. Sameer Khan as he is owner of part of Khasra No. 80/35, which is his personal and private land, and the same been agreed by the petitioner and Sameer Khan for sale and purchase. He also submits that the petitioner is paying electric bill and other required municipal corporation charges on time with regard to the Kh. No.406/10 and therefore also he gained possession over the private land and same is also evident from the B-1 and other revenue records that the disputed land is not part of government land i.e. Kh. No. 406/2010. Therefore, the impugned notice may be set aside.

¶32

4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for State strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

¶33

5 . Mr. S. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for municipal corporation opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred this petition against the notice under Section 302 of the Act and under the Municipal Corporation Act, there is provision of appeal under Section 403 of the Act, as such, this petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner is illegal encroacher of the Govt. land and he has encroached over the govt. road. He also submits that the petitioner has another shop and the disputed area has been rented out by him to some other

¶34

¶35

person. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has not placed original fact before this Court and has suppressed the fact which is evident from the demarcation report, which shows that the petitioner himself participated in the demarcation proceeding. Learned counsel also submits that 80 feet road has to be constructed and the work is under process. Other encroachers have removed their encroachment but only the petitioner has approached this Court without there being any documentary evidence showing his title over the disputed area.

¶36

6 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶37

7 . It transpires from the record that the petitioner has not adduced any documentary evidence showing his title over the disputed land and merely paying the municipal taxes do not establish or create any ownership over the property. The petitioner has filed copy of sale deed of Kh. No.80/35 for establishing the fact that he has entered into the agreement of sale but the said document no where shows the signature of seller Sameer Khan, therefore also this document looses it sanctity and would be of no help to the petitioner.

¶38

8 . Considering the documents adduced by the petitioner and over all facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to remove the illegal encroachment and vacate the premises in question within 12 weeks and hand over the possession to the respondent authorities. The

¶39

¶40

respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take necessary action if the illegal encroachment is not removed within 12 weeks.

¶41