Santosh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

¶10

2 - Joint Director Urban Administration Department, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

3 - The Collector District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh).

¶12

4 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Indaori, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh).

¶13

5 - Tahsildar Tahsil - Pipariya, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Revenue Inspector Dashrangpur, Tahsil - Pipariya, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms. Shriyadeep Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate.

¶17

For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA.

¶18

For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate with Mr. Rakshit Tiwari, Advocate.

¶19

2

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

06.10.2025

¶23

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

¶24

2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the

¶25

Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

¶26

“RELIEF (S) SOUGHT:

¶27

i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the relevant records pertaining to the instant matter.

¶28

ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notices dated 12.06.2025, 16.06.2025 20.06.2025 (granting 24 hours' time) issued by the respondent no. 4 Chief Municipal Officer, Indaori as being arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.

¶29

iii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Report and Panchnama dated 28.05.2025 issued by the respondent no. 5 as being arbitrary and illegal.

¶30

iv. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to conduct a fresh, joint, and impartial demarcation of both Khasra Nos. 825/1,827 and 1676/80 & 1762/80, strictly in accordance with law and in the presence of the Petitioner.

¶31

v. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favor of the petitioner.”

¶32

3

¶33

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per Annexure P-5, the concerned Competent Authority has granted patta to the petitioner in the year 2016-17 over the government land bearing Khasra Nos.1676/82 & 1762/82, admeasuring 0.010 hectares, situated at Purana Bazar, behind Gandhi Manch. A memo dated 15.05.2025 was issued for identifying the land for public structures, which appears to erroneously overlap with the petitioner's patta land and, thereafter, an ex-parte report dated 28.05.2025 was prepared alleging illegal construction on Khasra Nos.825/1 and 827--lands which are wholly unrelated to the Petitioner's patta land. Learned counsel further contended that relying solely on this flawed and unilateral report, the Chief Municipal Officer issued the show cause notices and threatened forcible removal of the Petitioner's residential structure, while ignoring the petitioner's repeated representations and the documentary evidence affirming his legal possession.

¶34

4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has encroached the government land. On 09/05/2025, respondent no.4/Chief Municipal Council has issued a letter Annexure R1 to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) regarding construction of Bharatmata Chowk and Rang Manch is proposed at Nagar Panchayat and asked for demarcation of land behind the Gandhi Manch for proposed public infrastructure and it was also mentioned in the said letter that if any unauthorized encroachment

¶35

4

¶36

is found, removed the such unauthorized encroachment and handover it to the Nagar Panchayat. Pursuant to which, on 15/5/2025, respondent No.5 has issued the memo directing demarcation of land and it is found that petitioner had encroached by raising column and started a new construction in front of his old house which is also evident from Panchnama dated 28/5/2025 (Annexure R-2).

¶37

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.

¶38

6. Perusal of records shows that before demarcation, no notice has been issued to the petitioner regarding demarcation of his land, without giving opportunity of hearing and without his presence, the concerned Authority has demarcated the disputed land.

¶39

7. It is also pertinent to mention here that in Writ Appeal No. 66/2022 (Trilochan Rathore vs. State of Chhattisgarh), the Division Bench of this Court held that under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959, the jurisdiction to direct removal of encroachment invests exclusively with the Tehsildar and not with the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council.

¶40

8. For the foregoing reasons/discussion, impugned notices dated 12.06.2025, 16.06.2025 & 20.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.4/Chief Municipal Officer are kept in abeyance. The respondent-authority concerned is directed to conduct a fresh demarcation of Khasra Nos.825/1, 827 and petitioner's land bearing Khasra Nos.1676/82 & 1762/82, admeasuring 0.010

¶41

5

¶42

hectares in his presence and if it found that any illegal encroachment carried out by the petitioner then proceed further in accordance with relevant law/rules/regulation. Till then no coercive

¶43

steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶44

9. In view of above, writ petition is disposed of with aforementioned observation/direction.

¶45

CC as per rules.

¶46

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶47

Judge

¶48

J/-

Santosh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Sangode Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satendra Biraj Bara Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Bobby Vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited

Sombhatt Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Alakhram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mangluram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh