Chunu Ram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chunu Ram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Eviction notice (Annexure P-1) dated 25-2-2026 issued by respondent No. 4/Tahsildar quashed; liberty left to conclude Revenue Case No. 202505232700027 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction notice (Annexure P-1) dated 25-2-2026 issued by respondent No. 4/Tahsildar for removal of alleged encroachment was lawful when Revenue Case No. 202505232700027 remained pending and unconcluded, with no final order passed on whether the petitioner had encroached.

Court's answer

Since the proceeding of Revenue Case No. 202505232700027 had not been concluded and no final order had been passed deciding whether the petitioner is an encroacher, the notice Annexure P-1 was completely against the law; accordingly, the eviction notice (Annexure P-1) dated 25-2-2026 issued by respondent No. 4/Tahsildar is quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is left with respondent No. 4 to conclude the proceeding of the aforesaid revenue case and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly made clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chunu Ram Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh & others - High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WPC No. 1157 of 2026, decided 18-3-2026 by Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J. (NAFR). The petitioner challenged an eviction notice (Annexure P-1) dated 25-2-2026 issued by the Tehsildar, Dewkar Block, Saja (respondent No. 4) for removal of alleged encroachment, even though Revenue Case No. 202505232700027 - initiated on a complaint by respondent No. 5 (Toran Gond) - was still pending before him, and although a coordinate bench in WPC No. 6241/2025 (Toran Gond and anr. v. State of CG and ors., order dated 1-12-2025) had directed conclusion of that revenue case within four months. The State confirmed the revenue case remained unconcluded. Held: as no final order had been passed deciding whether the petitioner was an encroacher, issuing the eviction notice was completely against the law; the notice dated 25-2-2026 was quashed, with liberty to the Tehsildar to conclude the revenue case and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The Court expressly recorded that it expressed no opinion on the merits; the writ petition was disposed of, along with pending interlocutory application(s), if any.

1

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.03.20 10:34:13 +0530

2026:CGHC:13054

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1157 of 2026

Chunu Ram Markam S/o Surit Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No 8, VillageKongiyakhurd Tehsil- Dewkar District- Bemetara (C.G.)

--- Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 492001

2 - Collector District- Bemetara (C.G.)

3 - SDO (R) Saja District Bemetara (C.G.)

4 - Tehsildar Dewkar Block- Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.)

5 - Toran Gond S/o Neelkanth Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kongiyakhurd Tehsil - Dewkar District- Bemetara (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order On Board

18-3-2026

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, on account

2

of complaint filed by respondent no. 5, Revenue Case No. 202505232700027 is pending consideration before the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar, Devkar Block, Saja. He further submits that in WPC No. 6241/2025 (Toran Gond and anr. Vs. State of CG and ors.), Coordinate bench of this Court has passed an order on 1-12-2025 directing the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar, Devkar Block, Saja to conclude the proceedings in revenue case No. 202505232700027 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. He further submits that, without concluding the proceeding of aforesaid revenue case, the respondent No. 4 has directly issued eviction notice (Annexure P-1) dated 25-22026 for removal of alleged encroachment, whereas the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar has not passed final order as to whether the petitioner has encroached or not.

In reply, learned State counsel, under instruction, would submit that, proceeding of aforesaid revenue case has not been concluded yet and the same is pending consideration before respondent No. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

As contended by learned State counsel, since proceeding of Revenue Case No. 202505232700027 has not been concluded yet and final order has not been passed, then it is surprising that,

3

how the respondent No. 4 has issued notice Annexure P-1 for removal of alleged encroachment, whereas it has not been decided yet whether the petitioner is an encroacher or not, as such, the notice Annexure P-1 is completely against the law. Therefore, notice (Annexure P-1) dated 25-2-2026 issued by the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar is quashed. However, liberty is left with the respondent No. 4 to conclude the proceeding of aforesaid revenue case and thereafter may proceed in accordance with law.

It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

pathak