Sanjay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2026WPC/3775/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPC No. 3775 of 2021, High Court of Chhattisgarh, decided 14.07.2026 by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu. Eviction notice by Gram Panchayat Dharashiv quashed for non-compliance with Section 56 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 (resolution, hearing, referral to Tahsildar) and Section 248 / 248(1-A) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959; Panchnama held insufficient; encroachment on government land; petitioners in possession since 1992; pending appeal of 24.07.2021 before SDO (Revenue); liberty to proceed afresh per due process.

What did the court decide?

Eviction notices at Annexure-P/1 issued by respondent No. 5 (Gram Panchayat Dharashiv) quashed; writ petition allowed; respondent No. 5 left free to initiate fresh encroachment-removal proceedings following due process under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam 1993 and Section 248 of the Code of 1959.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction notice dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No. 5, the Gram Panchayat Dharashiv, against the petitioners was issued in accordance with the procedure required under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam 1993 and Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959, and whether it is sustainable.

¶¶33

Court's answer

Under the scheme of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, even if the Village Panchayat is clothed with powers to remove obstructions and encroachments upon public streets and open sites, action can be taken only after a resolution is passed by the Village Panchayat; no such resolution was placed on record.

¶¶51

Ratio / Principle

Preparation of the Panchnama only identifies government land possessed by a private person and does not fulfil the requirement provided under Section 56 of the Act 1993.

¶¶52

Key takeaways

It was for the Gram Panchayat to forward its resolution to the Tahsildar for taking action of removing the encroachment, which was also not carried out by the Village Panchayat.ratio¶¶54
The Village Panchayat did not follow the due procedure provided under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam 1993 and Section 248 of the Code of 1959 for dispossessing the petitioners from the land possessed by them, even if it is government land.ratio¶¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (single Judge, Parth Prateem Sahu, J.) allowed a writ petition challenging an eviction notice dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Gram Panchayat Dharashiv against villagers in possession of the land since 1992. Holding that even where a Gram Panchayat is empowered under Section 56 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 to remove encroachments on public streets and open sites, action can be taken only after a resolution is passed by the Panchayat and, for land vested in the State Government, after referral to the Tahsildar to proceed under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959 (including the Section 248(1-A) 30-day procedure), the court found that no resolution was passed or forwarded, and that the Panchnama merely identified government land in private possession without fulfilling Section 56. The eviction notice was held unsustainable and quashed, with liberty to the Panchayat to initiate fresh proceedings strictly per due process.

CGHC010226882021

2026:CGHC:29817

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3775 of 2021

¶7

1 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Tilak Ram Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Dharashiv, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Ratthu Miri S/o Ghunu Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Dharashiv, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Banshi Miri S/o Ghunu Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village Dharashiv, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - Sanjay S/o Jogi Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Dharashiv, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Son Sai S/o Sajrang Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village Dharashiv, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶12

6 - Man Sai S/o Sajrang Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Village Dharashiv, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶13

7 - Rameshar Miri S/o Khartan Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Village Dharashiv, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶14

8 - Balram S/o Rupram Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Dharashiv, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Petitioner(s)

¶16

¶17

Versus

¶18

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Revenue Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2 - The Collector Balouda Bazar Bhatapara District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶20

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶21

4 - The Tahsildar Bilaigarh District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶22

5 - The Gram Panchayat Dharashiv Through Ots Secretary, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶23

		... Respondent(s)
For Petitioners	:	Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate
For Respondents	:	Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.

¶24

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

14.07.2026

¶27

1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs;

¶28

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the notice dated 27.08.2021 issued by the respondent No. 5 (Annexure-P/1) against the petitioners, in the ends of justice. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent No. 3 to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners on 24.07.2021, within stipulated time, in the ends of justice.

¶29

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner, including cost.”

¶30

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in possession of

¶31

the land subject matter of the Notice Annexure-P/1 since 1992 by

¶32

¶33

constructing a house. The respondent- Village Panchayat had issued notice of eviction on 27.08.2021, in fact that time the petitioners were in possession of the land by constructing a house for about 28 years. He next contended that under the scheme of the Land Revenue Code, if any person is in encroachment of the government land then it can be removed by the Tahsildar by initiating a proceedings under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959 and the Village Panchayat is having no authority under the Land Revenue Code, to issue notice of eviction and therefore, notice of eviction issued Annexure-P/1 be quashed.

¶34

3. Counsel for the State opposes the submission and would submit that under Section 56 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, the village Panchayats are having the authority to remove hindrances, obstructions and encroachment upon public streets and open sites and therefore, the submission of counsel for the petitioner that Village Panchayat is not having any authority under the law to issue such notice is not acceptable.

¶35

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

¶36

5. Admittedly the eviction notice is issued by the village panchayat. The provision under Section 56 which is relied upon by counsel for the State is relevant and therefore, it is extracted below for ready reference.

¶37

“ 56. Hindrances, obstructions and encroachment upon public street and open sites - (1) Whoever within the Gram Panchayat area causes any hindrance, obstruction or encroach-ment over any public street or open site or upon any drain in such street-

¶38

(a) by building or setting up any wall, fence, rail, post, stall,

¶39

¶40

verandah, platform, plinth, step or any other structure: ог

¶41

(b) without written permission of the Gram Panchayat or contrary to the conditions mentioned in such permission by putting up any verandah, balcony, room or other structure so as to project over any public street or upon any drain in such street; or

¶42

¶43

(d) by unauthorisedly cultivating any grazing or other land may be punished with fine, which may extend to Jone thousand) and In case of continuing offence with further fine which may extend to (twenty rupees) for for every day during which such encroachment, obstructions or projection continues after the date of first conviction for such offence.

¶44

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Gram Panchayat shall have power to remove any such obstruction or encroachment and to remove any crop unauthorisedly cultivated on grazing or any other land not being private property and shall have the like power to remove any unauthorised obstruction or encroachment or projection of the like nature in any open site not being private property, whether such site is vested in Gram Panchayat or not and the expenses of such removal shall be paid by the person who has caused the said encroachment and on failure to pay such expenses the same may be recovered from such person as an arrear of land revenue:

¶45

[Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and this sub-section if the Gram Panchayat resolves to remove any hindrances, obstruction or encroachment on any land vested in the State Government it may refer to the Tehsildar to remove such hindrances, obstruction or encroachment from such land and the Tehsildar shall proceed to do so under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959)].

¶46

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section the Gram Panchayat may allow any temporary occupation or erection in or putting projection over any public place for not exceeding ten days in such manner so as not to cause inconvenience to the public or any individual, on occasions of festivals and ceremonies in accordance with the byelaws made under this Act.

¶47

(4) The Gram Panchayat shall not pass any order in the exercise of powers under this section until the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard”

¶48

¶49

6. Under Proviso II sub Section 2 of Section 56 it is provided that if the Gram Panchayat resolves to remove any hindrances, obstructions or encroachment or any land vested in the State Government it may refer to the Tahsildar to remove such hindrances, obstructions or encroachment from such land and the Tahsildar shall proceed to do so under the C.G. Land Revenue Code. The sub Section 4 of Section 56 provides that Gram Panchayat shall not pass any orders in exercise of powers under the Section until the persons concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶50

7. In the case at hand the respondent-State though filed reply supporting the action of the Village-Panchayat, however, have not enclosed the document showing that the Village-Panchayat has passed any proposal for removing the possession of the petitioners from the land subject matter of the notice.

¶51

8. Under the Scheme of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, even if the Village Panchayat is clothed with the powers to remove the obstructions, encroachments upon public streets and open sites, then the action can be taken on such persons only after passing the resolution in this regard by the Village-Panchayat. No such resolution is placed on record.

¶52

9. The documents which is enclosed along with the reply is a Panchnama prepared. Preparation of the Panchnama is only identifying the Government Land which is possessed by a private person. It does not fulfill the requirement as provided under Section 56 of the Act 1993. Under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, the power is vested to the Tahsildar to remove the encroachment from the Government property. Under Section 248 (1-A) it is provided that on a

¶53

¶54

resolution duly passed by the Gram Panchayat in respect of any unauthorized possession, the Tahsildar can start and complete the proceedings under the Section within 30 days from the date of receipt of the information of such resolution and shall communicate the action to be taken by him to the Gram Panchayat. It is for the Gram Panchayat to forward the resolution to the Tahsildar for taking action of removing the encroachment which was also not carried out by the Village Panchayat.

¶55

10. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the specific provision under the Adhiniyam 1993 and the Code of 1959 from the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the reply submitted by the State, I am of the considered view that the Village Panchayat has not followed the due procedure as provided under Section 56 as also of the Adhiniyam 1993 as also Section 248 of the Code of 1959 for dispossessing the petitioners from the land possessed by them, even if it is a government land.

¶56

11. For the foregoing discussion the notice of eviction issued by the Village Panchayat i.e. respondent No. 5 is not sustainable accordingly, the notices Annexure-P/1 are quashed. Writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 5 will be at liberty to initiate the proceedings of removing encroachment of the petitioner from the Government land if it so desire following due process of law as provided under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam 1993 and the provision under Section 248 of the Code of 1959.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

( Parth Prateem Sahu ) JUDGE

¶59

Saurabh

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikant Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Susanna Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh