Pradeep Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010271332026

2026:CGHC:29595

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3685 of 2026

¶7

Pradeep Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Domar Singh Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Gurur, Patwari Halka Number 21, Revenue Circle And Tehsil Gurur, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 T he Collector Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Tehsildar Gurur, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. AG

¶16

Digitally signed by SHYNA SHYNAAJAY AJAY Date:2026.07.15 14:35:17 +0530

¶17

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

2

14/07/2026

Heard.

¶22

By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :

¶23

10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondents to not disturb the possession of the petitioner, and quash the impugned notice dated 10.07.2026 in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the notice dated 10.7.2026 issued by the Tehsildar, Gurur on the ground that the Tehsildar is not the competent authority to issue the same, as the subject land falls within the municipal limits of the Nagar Panchayat, Gurur. However, he submits that the petitioner has not filed any reply to the notice issued by the Tehsildar, who has directed for removal of encroachment within 24 hours.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that a perusal of the notice makes it evident that the petitioner has encroached upon 12.69 sq. meters of Government grassland bearing Khasra No.598, area 0.07 hectare and has constructed a house over the same. In view of the above, the concerned Tehsildar, Gurur is fully

¶26

3

¶27

competent and vested with the authority to issue the impugned notice.

¶28

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a reply to the impugned notice dated 10.7.2026 within 7 days from today along with all the relevant documents, including title deeds. Upon submission of the reply, the concerned Tehsildar is directed to consider and decide the subject dispute within a further period of 45 days. Furthermore, the concerned Tehsildar is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner till a final decision is taken on the said proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

¶29

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned authority is directed to decide the dispute on it own merits in accordance with law.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/-

¶31

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Shyna Ajay

Pradeep Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badkadau Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramcharan Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tekram Mande Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandradeep Kumar Vaishya, Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bank of Baroda Vs State of Chhattisgarh