Sarju Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:912

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 3486 of 2023

¶6

1 - Sarju Sahu S/o Bisheshar Sahu Aged About 80 Years President Of Navyuvak Mandal Rohansi, Tah. Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Sopal Ram Sahu S/o Ghasiya Sahu Aged About 78 Years Member Of Navyuvak Mandal Rohansi, Teh. Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) R/o Vill- Rohansi, Tah.- Palari, Dist.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Tameshwar S/o Baliram Sahu Aged About 65 Years Member Of Navyuvak Mandal Rohansi, Teh. Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) R/o VillRohansi, Tah.- Palari, Dist.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶9

4 - Chhedan Lal Sahu S/o Ghanaram Sahu Aged About 75 Years Member Of Navyuvak Mandal Rohansi, Teh. Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) R/o Vill- Rohansi, Tah.- Palari, Dist.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶10

5 - Rafiq Beg S/o Jafar Beg Aged About 70 Years Member Of Navyuvak Mandal Rohansi, Teh. Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) R/o VillRohansi, Tah.- Palari, Dist.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶11

6 - Mantram S/o Maniram Kannauje Aged About 70 Years Member Of Navyuvak Mandal Rohansi, Teh. Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) R/o Vill- Rohansi, Tah.- Palari, Dist.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶12

7 - Maheshwar Kannauje S/o Kheduram Kannauje Aged About 55 Years Member Of Navyuvak Mandal Rohansi, Teh. Palari, Dist- Baloda BazarBhatapara (C.G.) R/o Vill- Rohansi, Tah.- Palari, Dist.- Baloda BazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶13

... Petitioners

¶14

versus

¶15

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

2 - Collector Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara, Dist- Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶17

3 - Tahsildar Palari, Dist- Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶18

4 - Nayab Tahsildar, Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶19

5 - Gram Panchayat Through- Sarpanch, Vill- Raohansi, Tah.- Palari, DistBaloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶20

6 - Secretary, Gram Panchayat Through- Secretary, Vill- Rohansi, Tah.Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶21

Digitally signed by BHUMIKA BHUMIKA ANGARE ANGARE Date: 2026.01.09 10:36:43 +0530

¶22

2

¶23

7 - Kiran Baghel D/o Santosh Baghel Aged About 32 Years Present Sarpanch, Vill- Rohansi, Tah.- Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶24

8 - Chhuman Sen S/o Barsu Ram Sen Aged About 70 Years Vill- Rohansi, P.H. No. 34, Tah.- Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶25

9 - Brijdas Sonwani S/o Mohan Sonwani Aged About 75 Years Vill- Rohansi, P.H. No. 34, Tah.- Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶26

10 - Chhuraman Sahu S/o Sukhiram Sahu Aged About 65 Years VillRohansi, P.H. No. 34, Tah.- Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶27

11 - Kusumdev S/o Ramu Satnami Aged About 35 Years Vill- Rohansi, P.H. No. 34, Tah.- Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶28

12 - Nandeshwar Sahu S/o Lekhram Sahu Aged About 37 Years VillRohansi, P.H. No. 34, Tah.- Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶29

13 - Khileshwari Sahu W/o Mahendra Sahu Aged About 30 Years VillRohansi, P.H. No. 34, Tah.- Palari, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

For Petitioners	: Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Vivek Verma, Government Advocate
For Respondents No.	: Mr. Hemant Gupta,
7 to 13

¶32

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

07.01.2026

¶35

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the eviction warrant dated 19.07.2023 issued by respondent No. 4 wherein they are directed to evict the lands bearing Patwari Halka No. 34, Khasra No. 557/1, area 1.392 hectare and a part of land bearing Kadi No. 142 x 25 around 3550 sq. kadi (0.014 hectare) situated at Village Rohansi which is a government land and is used for public purpose wherein the petitioners have encroached and already constructed shop.

¶36

This Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 has granted interim protection which is still continuing.

¶37

3

¶38

Learned counsel for the State as well as respondents No. 7 to 13 would submit that land in question is the Government land, therefore, petitioners have no right to possess the said land illegally and would pray for dismissing the instant petition.

¶39

From bare perusal of the writ petition, it is quite vivid that the petitioners have not annexed any documents to demonstrate that they owned the land and has also not disputed that the finding recorded in the eviction order that said land is Government land, as such, in absence of any document with regard to title over the property in question there is no perversity or illegality in eviction order passed by the Nayab Tashildar, as such the instant is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, this petition is liable to be dismissed on other ground also as the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code which is appealable before the Appellate Authority as per Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code and Revisable under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code. In view of alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners, the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable.

¶40

Thus, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merits also as the petitioners have no authority to possess the land in question and also on the count that alternate remedies are available to them under the Land Revenue Code, 1959.

¶41