Sitaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

2 - The Collector Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶15

3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba, Saket, ITI Chowk, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.)

¶16

2

¶17

4 - Tehsildar Korba District Korba (C.G.)

¶18

5 - Hardeep Singh Rajpal S/o Late Pritam Singh R/o Main Road, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.)

¶19

--- Respondent(s)

¶20

WPC No. 5519 of 2024

¶21

Maan Kunwar W/o Chhote Lal Aged About 40 Years R/o Tina Dafai, Ratakhar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, C.G.

¶22

--- Petitioner(s)

¶23

Versus

¶24

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Korba, District Korba, C.G.

¶25

2 - Dub Divisional Officer (R) Korba Sub Division, Korba, District Korba, C.G.

¶26

3 - Tahsildar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, C.G.

¶27

4 - Municipal Corporation Korba, Saket, Korba, District Korba, C.G.

¶28

5 - Hardeep Singh Rajpal S/o Preetam Singh Rajpal R/o Main Road Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, C.G.

¶29

--- Respondent(s)

¶30

WPC No. 4510 of 2023

¶31

1 - Chandrashekhar S/o. Ramsurat, Aged About 60 Years R/o. House No.927, Ward No.2, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶32

3

¶33

2 - Shyam Lal, S/o. Ramesh Lal, Aged About 66 Years R/o. House No.838, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶34

3 - Babulal, S/o. Indrajan Chauhan, Aged About 53 Years R/o. House No.841, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶35

4 - Shyam Das, S/o. Ishwar Das Bairagi, Aged About 66 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In P/1.) R/o. House No.831, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶36

5 - Shanti Bai, W/o. Chhedidas, Aged About 61 Years R/o. House No.1153, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶37

6 - Pawan Kumar, S/o. Laxman Kenwat, Aged About 46 Years R/o. House No.825, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶38

7 - Durga Patel, S/o. Shettar Patel, Aged About 48 Years R/o. House No.978, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶39

--- Petitioner(s)

¶40

Versus

¶41

1 - The Collector Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶42

2 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Korba Sub Division, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶43

3 - Tahsildar, Korba, Tahsil And District -Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶44

4 - Municipal Corporation Korba, Saket, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶45

4

¶46

5 - Hardeep Singh Rajpal, S/o. Preetam Singh Rajpal, R/o. Main Road Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶47

6 - Ramnivas, S/o. Rekharam Rajput, R/o. House No.26, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶48

7 - Shyamjit S/o. Parmeshwar Yadav, R/o. House No.134, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶49

8 - Savitri Bai, W/o. Samaru Markam, R/o. Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶50

9 - Shyam Sundar, S/o. Sonsai Prajapati, R/o. House No.838/a, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶51

10 - Radheshyam S/o. Narayan Yadav, R/o. House No.124, Ward No.4, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶52

11 - Tulsi Bai, W/o. Sitaram, R/o. House No.1160, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶53

12 - Laxman Kewat, S/o. Moha Lal Kewat, R/o. House No.972, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶54

--- Respondent(s)

¶55

WPC No. 5393 of 2024

¶56

1 - Tulsi Bai Wd/o Late Sitaram Aged About 60 Years R/o Tina Dafai Ratakhar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶57

2 - Pancho Bai Wd/o Late Maniram Aged About 62 Years R/o Tina Dafai Ratakhar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶58

5

¶59

3 - Shyam Sundar S/o Late Son Sai Aged About 70 Years R/o Tina Dafai Ratakhar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶60

--- Petitioner(s)

¶61

Versus

¶62

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶63

2 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Korba Sub Division, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶64

3 - Tahsildar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶65

4 - Municipal Corporation Korba Saket Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶66

5 - Hardeep Singh Rajpal S/o Preetram Singh Rajpal, R/o Main Road, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶67

--- Respondent(s)

¶68

WPC No. 5302 of 2024

¶69

1 - Ramnivas Rajput S/o Late Rekhram Rajput, Aged About 44 Years R/o Tina Dafai, Ratakhar, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.)

¶70

2 - Laxman Kenwat W/o Late Mohan Lal Kenwat, Aged About 76 Years R/o Tina Dafai, Ratakhar, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.)

¶71

3 - Dhajaram Patel W/o Late Kanhaiya Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Tina Dafai, Ratakhar, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.)

¶72

--- Petitioner(s)

¶73

6

¶74

Versus

¶75

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.)

¶76

2 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Korba Sub Division, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.)

¶77

3 - Tahsildar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.)

¶78

4 - Municipal Corporation Korba, Saket, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.)

¶79

5 - Hardeep Singh Rajpal S/o Preetam Singh Rajpal, R/o Main Road Korba, Tahsil And District-Korba (C.G.).

¶80

--- Respondent(s)

¶81

For Petitioner(s)	Mr. RS Baghel, Advocate with Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate.
For State	Mr. Ajit Singh, GA.
For Municipal Corporation	Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶82

Respondent No.5 Mr. Hardeep Singh Present in person. Rajpal,

¶83

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶84

Order on Board

¶85

10.11.2025

¶86

1. These writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the

¶87

Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

¶88

“10. RELIEFS SOUGHT:-

¶89

7

¶90

That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case.

¶91

That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned notice dated 12/09/2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.4

¶92

That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to carry out the proper demarcation of the land bearing Khasra No.55/1 & 74/1 of village Ratakhar, Tehsil & District Korba, after following the due process of law.

¶93

Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶94

Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶95

2. Facts projected by the petitioners in the writ petitions are that on 12/05/2014 a spot inspection panchnama alleged to be made behind the back of the petitioners, in which, it is alleged that the petitioners are in encroacher of land in question, however, in the Panchnama, neither description of land Chouhaddi nor area alleged to be encroached are mentioned, further Panchnama does not contain signature of any of the names mentioned in the Panchnama. The petitioners came to know about the Panchnama only when notices were served for eviction. A writ petition (WPC No.2137/2022) was filed by respondent No.5/Hardeep Singh Rajpal, wherein the petitioners were not the party and on 17.01.2023 said writ petition was disposed of with following directions:

¶96

8

¶97

“ 8. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, particularly, taking note of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 16.04.2018, whereby the order passed by the Tahsildar Korba and the Sub Divisional Officer Korba in a proceeding under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code so far as removal of illegal encroachment is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition at this juncture can be disposed of directing the Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 to take appropriate steps ensuring that the order of Board of Revenue dated 16.04.2018, subject to verification of facts and also the orders dated 09.06.2014 and 20.04.2016 were passed by the Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer in the proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, is complied with in its letter and spirit in accordance with law within an outer limit of 60 days.

¶98

9 . Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.”

¶99

3. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.4 on application of private respondent No.5 for evicting the petitioners herein, wherein also petitioners were not noticed and were not made party. Petitioners are residing since last 30-40 years on the land in question and in-fact they are residing on Khasra No.74/1 of village -Ratakhar. The area is developed by Municipal Corporation and roads have been laid, pipelines for water have been laid and the petitioners are having electricity connection and the petitioners are paying the property tax also. In spite of the above facts, all of a sudden, impugned notice/memo (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.4 directing the

¶100

9

¶101

petitioners to remove their houses on land in question. Hence, this petition.

¶102

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that government has granted Patta in favour of the petitioners for land bearing Khasra No.74/1 at village-Ratakhar; description of land Chouhaddi is also mentioned in the said Patta. He further contended that petitioners have not encroached the land of the private respondent No.5’s bearing Khasra No.55/1, but they are in the rightful possession of the land in question bearing Khasra No.74/1, for which, the government has issued the Patta. Without following the due process of law, the respondent-authority concerned has demarcated the land of respondent No.5, ie, Khasra No.55/1 and concerned Authority vide impugned order/notice/memo has also passed the eviction order against the petitioners for Khasra No.55/1, which has also been upheld by the Revenue Board, therefore, at this stage, petitioners do not want to raise any claim with regard to Khasra No.55/1 and petitions only want their Khasra No.74/1 be demarcated by the team constituted by the concerned Authority and, thereafter, provide them the possession of Khasra No.74/1, for which, Patta has been allotted by the government. In support of his case, he places reliance upon the order/decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed on 15.11.2019 in WPC No.1134/2019.

¶103

5. Respondent No.5/Hardeep Singh Rajpal, in person contended that Khasra No.55/1 has already been demarcated by two times

¶104

10

¶105

by the constituted team under Section 129 of the Land Revenue Code 1959 and, in which, it is found that petitioners are encroachers of respondent No.5’s land bearing Khasra No.55/1, therefore, these petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶106

6. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation contended that they have no objection if patta land of the petitioners bearing Khasra No.74/1 be demarcated by concerned Authority.

¶107

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused writ petitions.

¶108

8. Perusal of records shows that the Government has granted Patta in favour of the petitioners for land bearing Khasra No.74/1 at village-Ratakhar.

¶109

9. As per version of respondent No.5/Hardeep Singh Rajpal, who appears in person, petitioners are encroachers of his land bearing Khasra No.55/1.

¶110

10. It is pertinent to mention here that records of this case also reveals that before demarcating the land bearing Khasra No.55/1, notice was issued to the petitioners and, thereafter, proceeding of demarcation had been done. The order of Board of Revenue dated 16.04.2018, whereby the order passed by the Tahsildar Korba and the Sub Divisional Officer Korba in a proceeding under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code for removal of illegal encroachment of the petitioners of Khasra No.55/1 is neither perverse nor illegal and there is no any jurisdictional error.

¶111

11

¶112

11. Since, the petitioners do not want to raise any claim with regard to Khasra No.55/1, therefore, claim regarding Khasra No.55/1 is hereby rejected.

¶113

12. Considering facts of the case, nature of dispute, submissions of counsel for the parties, above writ petitions are disposed of directing the concerned respondent-authority to constitute a team and demarcate the patta land of the petitioners bearing Khasra No.74/1, within an outer limit of ‘45 days’ from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, strictly in accordance with relevant rules/law/regulation, after giving/issuing the notices to all the concerns. So that, the petitioners can rehabilitate on the said patta land, which has been allotted by the government in their favour.

¶114

CC as per rules.

¶115

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶116

J/-

Sitaram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram 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 Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Agriculture and Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prakhar Jindal

Dhaneshwer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Singh Songara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raghuveer Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Singh Sisodiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh