Dismissed

Tamashkar Lal Tandan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2026WPC/2139/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash eviction notice for possession of Nazul land for 30+ years citing a 2019 circular for ownership. Court dismissed petition as circular withdrawn, but stayed eviction for 4 months allowing petitioner to file application with competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Eviction action stayed for four months; petitioner directed to file application with appropriate authority expeditiously.

Tamashkar Lal Tandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

1 / 4

2026:CGHC:22131

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2139 of 2021

¶6

Tamashkar Lal Tandan S/o Late Shri Santram Tandan Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Padaawpara, Jawahar Ward, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Secretary Department Of Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Collector District- Mungeli, Office Of District Collector, Mungeli, Karahi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Nazul Officer Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶14

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	:Mr. Himanshu Kunjam, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre,Advocate
For Resp. No.1 to 3 & 5	:Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer
For Resp. No.4	:Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.13 10:24:31 +0530

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

11/05/2026

¶20

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶21

“10.1 Quash the impugned notice dated 01.04.2021 to the petitioner (Annexure P/1), and the action to be taken by the respondent herein whereby the petitioner has been directed to evacuate the premises or would be done forcefully.

¶22

10.2 Direct the respondents not to proceed further, pursuant to issuance of the impugned notice dated 01.04.2021 to the petitioner (Annexure P/1), and the action to be taken by the respondent.

¶23

10.3 Direct the respondent no.5 to allow petitioner to pay the required amount and then grant the free hold rights to the petitioner.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is resident of Padaawpara, Jawahar Ward, Mungeli since last 30 to 35 years. Petitioner is residing there after construction of house on govt. land (nazul land) for last more than 30 years. Petitioner got knowledge about the circular issued by the State Govt. dated 26.10.2019 for granting the persons, ownership rights over the government land possessed by them since long time. Accordingly petitioner had submitted application under the said circular before the appropriate authority. One memo was issued to petitioner on 15.01.2021 that for allotment of land possessed by petitioner he has to deposit sum of Rs.4,22,196/-. However, before depositing the said amount, memo Annexure P-1 was issued on 01.04.2021 mentioning that claim of

¶25

3 / 4

¶26

petitioner was rejected on 04.03.2021 and to remove his encroachment with the period of 3 days. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed. He contended that as the petitioner is in possession of govt. land since last 30-35 years and State Govt. has issued circular for grant of ownership rights in such circumstances upon making payment of amount to be computed by the State Govt., direction be issued to consider the claim of petitioner for allotment of land subject matter of writ petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.4 jointly oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that circular which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has been subsequently withdrawn by the State Govt. by issuing another circular and as there is no instructions/circular/guidelines of the State Govt. for allotting the Govt. land encroached by a person, no relief as prayed for can be granted in this writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that in the similar facts of case, writ petition filed by petitioner in WPC No.3966 of 2023 was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2024.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶29

The petitioner has prayed for relief based on circular issued by the State Govt. dated 26.10.2019. Undisputedly, the circular which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has been subsequently withdrawn by issuing another circular dated 23^rd July 2024 and further that the application submitted by petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.03.2021 by appropriate committee

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

constituted by the competent authority under the earlier circular dated 11.09.2019.

¶32

In the aforementioned facts of case when the circular which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner for allotment of govt. land is not in existence, no relief can be granted to petitioner. However, considering the fact as pleaded in writ petition that petitioner is in possession of land since last 30 to 35 years and has also raised permanent construction, petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate application before Collector against the order passed by Nazul Officer Annexure P-1.

¶33

In the aforementioned facts of case, I am inclined to protect the petitioner for a limited period enabling him to file appropriate application before appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance as raised in this writ petition.

¶34

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the respondent are directed not to take any action against the petitioner pursuant to memo dated 01.04.2021 for a further period of 4 months from today, and in the meanwhile petitioner shall file appropriate application before appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance. If such an application is filed, concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously thereafter.

¶35

Praveen

Tamashkar Lal Tandan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamashkar Lal Tandan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Engineers and Builder Private Limited Vs Sarans Mittal

Jai Sandhya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Odadabri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bal Chand Kachhwaha Vs (Deleted), Dr. Alok Shukla

Yadram Yadav Vs Rajeev Rai

Santoshi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayantrao Gaikwad, Vs Manish Mishra