Allowed

Narsingh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026WPC/4767/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed eviction notices issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kaldabri, holding that the Sarpanch lacks statutory authority to issue direct eviction orders under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The proper procedure requires the Panchayat to refer encroachment matters to the Tahsildar or competent revenue authority, which was not followed. The Gram Panchayat remains at liberty to make a proper reference, and the revenue authority must then decide after affording the petitioner a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Eviction notices dated 05.08.2026, 21.08.2026, 29.08.2026 and 07.09.2026 quashed; Gram Panchayat at liberty to refer matter to revenue authority; revenue authority to decide eviction after hearing petitioner.

Narsingh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010366392026

2026:CGHC:41032

NAFR

Digitally signed by PRIYANKA PRIYANKA VERMA VERMA Date: 2026.09.22 12:05:08 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 4767 of 2026

¶8

1 - Narsingh S/o Shatruhan Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Kaldabri Post- Dumardihkhurd Tahsil- Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Collector District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Tahsildar Tahsil Ghumka District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶16

6 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Kaldabri Tashil- Ghumka District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶17

7 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kaldabri Tashil Ghumka District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

21/09/2026

¶23

The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶24

¶25

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

¶26

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned orders/ notices dated 05.08.2026, 21.08.2026, 29.08.2026 and 07.09.2026 (Annexure-P/1 collectively) issued by the respondent No.7 i.e. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kaldabri, Tashil Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to remain continue there without there being any interruption. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that orders for eviction of possession dated 05.08.2026, 21.08.2026, 29.08.2026 & 07.09.2026 were issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat- Kaldabri, Tahsil Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon, who has no authority to issue such notices/orders. It is submitted that as per Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the concerned Sarpanch shall only refer the resolution passed by the Panchayat for removal of encroachment to the concerned Tahsildar, which has not been done, instead, a direct notice for eviction has been issued by the concerned Sarpanch and as such, it is not in accordance with law.

¶28

¶29

Learned State counsel submits that, so far as the proceedings are concerned, the same have not been conducted by the concerned Tahsildar and only a notice for eviction has been issued.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the documents available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel, it appears that the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kaldabri, has issued orders for eviction under Section 56 of the Act, 1993, for which the concerned Gram Panchayat is not competent. At the most, the concerned Gram Panchayat has to refer the matter to the concerned revenue authority i.e., the Tahsildar or any other competent revenue authority, which has not been done in the present case and a direct notice for eviction has been issued by the concerned Sarpanch is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the orders dated 05.08.2026, 21.08.2026, 29.08.2026 & 07.09.2026 are hereby quashed, however, the Gram Panchayat, Kaldabri, is at liberty to pass an appropriate reference in respect of eviction of the petitioner from the property in question to the concerned revenue authorities and, in turn, the concerned revenue authorities are required to pass an appropriate order for eviction of the petitioner in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not passed any order on the merits of the case. The present order has been passed on the ground that the concerned Gram Panchayat is not having the authority to issue a direct notice for eviction in the matter.

¶31

¶32

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition

¶33

stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶36

Priyanka

Narsingh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsingh 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