RAJULAL PRAJAPATI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010412982026 2026:CGHC:45926-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
BABLU
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.10.31
11:04:25
+0530
BABLU
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
WA No. 1048 of 2026
Rajulal Prajapati S/o Shri Heeralal Prajapati, Aged About 49 Years,
Caste Kumhar, R/o Village Kauhi, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
4 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.)
5 - The Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr.Khemchand Prajapati, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Amit Buxy, Deputy Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice
30.10.2026
1. Heard Mr.Khemchand Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant

2
as well as Mr.Amit Buxy, learned Deputy Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents/State.
2. The order dated 23.09.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned
Single Judge in WPC No.4829/2026 is under challenge in this
intra-court appeal, whereby the writ petition filed by the present
appellant was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an order of eviction
was passed against the appellant without affording him an
opportunity of hearing and a warrant of eviction was issued vide
order dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition). Since
the appellant was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing in
the eviction proceeding, he filed WPC No.4829/2026, wherein the
impugned order has been passed. It is further submitted that the
appellant had also prayed for settlement of the Government land
in his possession. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition with a direction that the appellant should file appropriate
reply before the concerned authority within a period of 15 days
from the date of receipt of the said order. The competent authority
was also directed to consider the grievance of the appellant and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
appellant being a landless person, was earning his livelihood from
pottery business, encroaching upon a piece of the Government
land and was residing thereon. Since the land in question was

3
adjacent to a school, an eviction proceeding was initiated against
the appellant and subsequently, he was directed to be evicted. It
is his submission that learned Single Judge while issuing
aforesaid directions at para 9 of the impugned order made it clear
that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case of the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved by such
observation has filed the writ appeal.
5. Mr.Buxy, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents/State, on the other hand, refuting to the submission
made by learned counsel for the appellant submits that against an
order of eviction, the appellant had a remedy under Section 44(a)
of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity “the
Code”). Without availing such remedy and without assailing the
order of eviction, the writ petition was filed. The appellant only
challenged the warrant of eviction without challenging the order of
eviction. The order of eviction was passed against the appellant
on 13.05.2026 in Misc. Petition No.1196/2026. Such order was
neither enclosed to the writ petition nor assailed. Thus, the writ
petition was not at all maintainable. An objection to that effect was
also filed before learned Single Judge by the State. He, therefore,
submits that if the appellant has any grievance with regard to the
order of eviction, he could have filed an appeal under Section
44(a) of the Code.
6. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

4
parties, this Court finds that learned Single Judge had given an
opportunity to the appellant to raise his grievance before the
competent authority and has protected his possession for a period
of 60 days from the date of impugned order. Thus, this Court finds
that the appellant has no subsisting grievance in the matter.
Further, the appellant has a remedy of appeal under Section 44(a)
of the Code to challenge the order of eviction.
7. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned order under Annexure A-1. Accordingly, the writ appeal,
being devoid of any merits, stands dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu