KANHAIYA YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
1
CGHC010189532026 2026:CGHC:46854
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHYNA
AJAY
WPC No. 2365 of 2026
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.11.05
14:30:40 +0530
Order Reserved on 16.10.2026
Order Pronounced on 05.11.2026
Kanhaiya Yadav S/o Late Paras Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Ratakhar, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (CG)
2 The Collector Korba, Distt- Korba (C.G.)
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Korba Sub Division, Korba, Distt- Korba
(C.G.)
4 Tahsildar Korba, Tahsil & Distt- Korba (C.G.)
5 - Municipal Corporation Korba, Saket, Korba, Distt- Korba (C.G.)
2
6 - Hardeep Singh Rajpal S/o Preetam Singh Rajpal R/o Main Road
Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 2367 of 2026
1 - Dhajaram Patel S/o Late Kanhaiya Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o
Tina Dafai, Ratakhar Korba District- Korba (C.G.)
2 - Maan Kunwar W/o Chhote Lal Aged About 40 Years R/o Tina Dafai,
Ratakhar, Korba, Tehsil and District- Korba (C.G.)
3 - Shanti Bai W/o Chhedidas Aged About 61 Years R/o House No.
1153, Tinadfai Ratakhar Korba District- Korba (C.G.)
4 - Hari Shankar Yadav S/o Late Paras Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o
Tina Dafai, Ratakhar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.)
5 - Laxman Kewat S/o Mohan Lal Kewat, Aged About 76 Years R/o
House No. 972, Tinadfai, Ratakhar, Korba District- Korba (C.G.)
6 - Sukhdev Kewat S/o Laxman Kewat, Aged About 41 Years R/o Tina
Dafai, Ratakhar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.)
7 - Mohit Kumar S/o Late Santosh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years R/o
Tina Dafai, Ratakhar Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (CG)
3
2 - The Collector, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.)
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R ), Korba Sub Division, Korba, Distt. Korba
(C.G.)
4 – Tahsildar, Korba, Tahsil and Distt. Korba (C.G.)
5 - Municipal Corporation Korba, Saket, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.)
6 - Hardeep Singh Rajpal S/o Preetam Singh Rajpal R/o Main Road
Korba, Tahsil and District- Korba (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate and Ms.
Chetna Sharma, Advocate
For
Respondent/State
:
Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. GA
For Respondent
:
Mr. Hardik Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
No.5
Anshul Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent
:
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
No.6
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. Since the writ petitioners in the captioned Writ Petitions have
assailed the notice(s) of eviction dated 23.04.2026 issued by the
Tehsildar, Korba, in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 55/1,
both petitions were clubbed together for hearing pursuant to the
order-sheet dated 19.06.2026 (in WPC No.2367/2026).
Accordingly, both cases were heard analogously and are being
disposed of by this common order, as the subject matter in
4
dispute is one and the same.
2. T
he petitioners, by way of the present Writ Petitions, have
challenged the eviction notices dated 23.04.2026 issued by the
Tehsildar, Korba, under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land
Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),
whereby the respective petitioners were directed to remove their
alleged illegal encroachments on or before 08.05.2026, failing
which the possession of the petitioners would be forcefully
removed by the department concerned and the expenses
incurred by the State in doing so would be recovered from them
as arrears of land revenue through Revenue Recovery
proceedings. The impugned notices recite that the Board of
Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, passed an order way back on
16.04.2018 against the alleged encroachers/the petitioners,
holding that they had illegally encroached upon the land in
question bearing Khasra No. 55/1, while affirming the concurrent
orders passed by the revenue authorities i.e. the concerned
Tehsildar and the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). It
has been further stated in the said notice that in light of the order
dated 10.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4373 of 2023, the
petitioners are encroachers and cannot legally occupy the land
bearing Khasra No. 55/1. Hence, notices of eviction have been
issued to each of the petitioners, all of whom have assailed the
same before this Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, WPC No.2365/2026 is being
treated as the lead case and the facts of the said petition are
5
being referred to for the purpose of adjudication. The decision
rendered herein, shall, however, govern the connected Writ
Petition as well. In sum and substance, the writ petitioners have
prayed for the same reliefs. In WPC No.2365/2026, the petitioner
therein has prayed for the following reliefs:
1. Hon'ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to
call for the records of the case from the respondents.
2. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the
illegal eviction notice dated 23.04.2026 (Annexure
P/1).
3. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an
appropriate direction to the concern authority to carry
out the proper demarcation of the subject land i.e Kh.
No.74/1 of village Ratakhar, Tahsil & District Korba
after following of due process of law.
4. Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court may deem
fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case
4.
Brief facts of the case, as set-forth by the petitioner, are that the
petitioner, a homeless urban resident, who has been residing
peacefully along with his family for the last 30 to 40 years on
Government Abaadi land bearing Khasra No. 74/1, situated at
Village Ratakhar, P.H.N. 09, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.). In
recognition of his long-standing settled possession, the State
Government duly allotted a leasehold Patta (lease) in favor of the
petitioner, upon which he constructed a residential structure for
6
his shelter. The present dispute originated when respondent No.
6, a private party, submitted an application before Respondent
No. 3 {Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)} falsely alleging that the
petitioner was encroaching upon his private land bearing Khasra
No. 55 / 1. The petitioner filed objections stating that he is in
occupation of Government Abaadi land under Khasra No. 74/1
pursuant to a valid Government Patta and not Khasra No. 55/1.
Despite this, a Revenue Demarcation Team allegedly conducted
a survey on 12.05.2014 and submitted a report on 15.05.2014,
which was prepared entirely behind the back of the petitioner
without issuing prior notice, obtaining his signature or specifying
the mandatory boundaries ( Chauhaddi ). Solely relying on this
report, Respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional (R), Korba, passed an
order dated 09.06.2014 (Annexure P/3) declaring the petitioner
an encroacher and ordering restoration of possession to
respondent No. 6. Though the petitioner’s first appeal was
dismissed by Respondent No. 2 (Collector) vide order dated
20.04.2016 (Annexure P/4), but the Divisional Commissioner,
Bilaspur Division, vide order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P/5),
allowed the second appeal of the petitioner, set aside the orders
dated 09.06.2014 and 20.04.2016 and remanded the matter to
Respondent No. 3 to conduct a fresh demarcation in the
presence of the petitioner. However, respondent No. 6 challenged
the said order of the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue,
Bilaspur, which, vide order dated 16.04.2018 (Annexure P/6), set
aside the remand order of the Commissioner, without proper
7
notice or knowledge to the petitioner. Aggrieved by subsequent
ejectment threats, the petitioner along with other residents
approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4373/2023 and
connected matters. This Court, vide order dated 10.11.2025
(Annexure P/7), disposed of the petitions with a direction to the
concerned Respondent authorities to constitute a team, serve
prior notices to all affected parties and complete demarcation of
the Patta land (Khasra No. 74/1) within 45 days strictly in
accordance with law, while also considering rehabilitation
measures. In complete defiance of these judicial directions, the
authorities failed to conduct any demarcation or serve prior
notices and instead affixed an arbitrary eviction notice to remove
the encroachment within three days, dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure
P/8) on the wall of the house of the petitioner. Though a certified
copy of the demarcation report was applied for on 10.02.2026,
none was provided. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed WP(C)
No. 673/2026, which was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P/10) passed in the aforesaid writ
petition and connected petitions, on an undertaking by the State
to recall the impugned notice(s). Despite this solemn undertaking
and clear judicial protection, Respondent No. 4-the Tehsildar,
Korba, acting in collusion with respondent No. 6, issued a fresh
illegal eviction notice(s) dated 23.04.2026 (Annexure P/1)
ordering the petitioner to vacate his residential property by
08.05.2026 under threat of forcible demolition and recovery of
costs, without carrying out the mandatory demarcation of Khasra
8
No. 74/1 or providing rehabilitation as directed by this Court.
Hence, this Petition(s).
5.
Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner(s)
submits that the petitioner is not an illegal occupant upon the
land in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 55/1, rather, he is lawful allottee of
the land bearing Khasra No. 74/1, situated at Village Ratakhar,
Tahsil and District Korba. He submits that valid Patta (lease) has
been issued in favor of the petitioner(s), pursuant to which, he
has constructed his residential house and badi upon the said
land and has been residing there peacefully. He further submits
that the revenue authorities have repeatedly issued eviction
notices against the petitioner, which have been challenged from
time to time before the subordinate revenue Courts as well as
before this Court in various writ petitions. Ultimately, this Court,
vide order dated 10.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4373 of 2025
and connected petitions, directed the respondent authorities to
conduct a demarcation in accordance with law so as to specify,
delineate and identify the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra
No. 74/1. Learned counsel submits that the authorities have failed
to conduct any demarcation, have denied the petitioner a
reasonable opportunity of hearing and have instead procured a
clandestine demarcation report behind the back of the petitioner,
which is non est and not binding upon him. He further submits
that the petitioner has been in continuous occupation of the
subject land for several decades and has constructed his
residential house thereon. As such, it would be unjustified to treat
9
him as encroacher and to issue notice for his eviction. He further
submits that the once Revenue Courts erred in passing the order
of eviction, which was assailed before this Court on multiple
occasions, culminating in the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in
WP(C) No. 4373 of 2025 and connected petitions, whereby a
fresh demarcation was directed to be conducted (in respect of
Khasra No.74/1) in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned
notice issued by the concerned Tehsildar is illegal, arbitrary and
unsustainable in the eyes of the law and cannot be permitted to
operate. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to the
economically weaker section of society, who, upon the grant of
Patta by the State Government, entered into possession of the
subject land and constructed his residential house thereon.
Having been inducted into lawful possession by virtue of the said
Patta , the petitioner cannot now be illegally evicted from the land
in question. Inasmuch as the alleged demarcation was conducted
behind the back of the petitioner and in flagrant violation of the
prescribed procedure of law, it would be just and proper to direct
the respondent authorities to carry out a fresh demarcation in
accordance with law to clearly delineate and identify the land
allotted to the petitioner, thereby securing his quiet enjoyment
thereof. He also submits that the petitioner entered into
occupation pursuant to the physical allotment of the land by the
competent authorities and his possession remained undisturbed
without any objection from any quarter for decades. Hence, the
present belated objections raised by the private respondent are
10
devoid of merit. Lastly, he submits that the long-standing settled
possession of the petitioner cannot be viewed in isolation or
brushed aside lightly and the same ought to have been duly
considered by the respondent authorities, which they have failed
to do. Consequently, facing an imminent and immediate threat of
forcible dispossession, the petitioner has been constrained to
invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Per contra , Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel for the State-
Respondents submits that the petitioners and other similarly
situated persons were duly allotted land bearing Khasra No. 74/1
and therefore, they are bound to confine their occupation to the
land specifically granted to them. As no land bearing Khasra No.
55/1 was ever settled in their favour, any occupation or
possession asserted by the petitioner over the said Khasra
number is illegal and they cannot claim any right, title or interest
therein. He further submits that the petitioners are bound to
restrict their occupation exclusively to the land validly allotted to
them, which has been duly identified and delineated by the
Tehsildar concerned during the course of demarcation
proceedings, both previously conducted and recently undertaken
in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court vide order
dated 10.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4373 of 2023 and
connected petitions. It is urged that the petitioner has
unauthorizedly and illegally occupied land bearing Khasra No.
55/1, which forms no part of their lawful allotment. In that view of
11
the matter and in compliance with the order dated 10.11.2025
passed in WP(C) No. 4373 of 2023 and connected petitions as
well as the order dated 15.10.2024 passed in Contempt Case (C)
No. 389 of 2023, the concerned Tehsildar has rightly issued the
impugned notice for the eviction of the petitioner from the land
bearing Khasra No. 55/1. It is categorically submitted that during
the hearing of WP(C) No. 4373 of 2023 and other conneced
petitions, the petitioners themselves conceded that they lay no
claim over the land bearing Khasra No. 55/1. Ultimately, the order
dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue was affirmed
by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated
10.11.2025. The relevant extracts of the order dated 10.11.2025
read as under:
“ 10. It is pertinent to mention here that records of this case also
reveals that before demarcating the land bearing Khasra
No.55/1, notice was issued to the petitioners and, thereafter,
proceeding of demarcation had been done. The order of
Board of Revenue dated 16.04.2018, whereby the order
passed by the Tahsildar Korba and the Sub Divisional Officer
Korba in a proceeding under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh
Land Revenue Code for removal of illegal encroachment of
the petitioners of Khasra No.55/1 is neither perverse nor
illegal and there is no any jurisdictional error.
11. Since, the petitioners do not want to raise any claim with
regard to Khasra No.55/1, therefore, claim regarding Khasra
No.55/1 is hereby rejected.
7. In the premises aforesaid, learned counsel for the State submits
that no illegality whatsoever can be attributed to the action of the
authorities, inasmuch as the aforesaid order has attained finality
12
and the petitioner is bound thereby. Thus, the petitioner can
assert no right title, or interest over the land bearing Khasra No.
55/1 and the impugned notice(s) of eviction has been rightly
issued, warranting no interference by this Court. He further
submits that the petitioner(s) is an unauthorized encroacher who
has remained in illegal occupation of the subject land for a
considerable period and he cannot be permitted to perpetuate his
encroachment even for a moment. He further submits that other
illegal occupants have already vacated their encroachments and
the present petitioners have themselves admitted to being
encroachers. They were actively present during the recent
demarcation proceedings and duly signed the demarcation
documents. Furthermore, vide order dated 10.11.2025, the
petitioners relinquished their claim in respect of land bearing
Khasra No. 55/1 and consequently, their claim was rejected by
this Court. In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of
any merit and is liable to be dismissed in limine .
8. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.6, submits
that the land bearing Khasra No. 55/1, admeasuring 1.38 acres,
belongs to respondent No. 6 and the petitioners and other
persons have unlawfully encroached upon the same. He submits
that respondent No. 6 filed an application under Section 250 of
the Code seeking the eviction of the encroaching petitioners and
the restoration of possession of the subject land. It was further
submitted that the petitioners and other persons were granted a
lease in respect of Government land bearing Khasra No. 74/1 for
13
residential purposes, however, instead of occupying the land so
leased to them, they have illegally encroached upon the land
belonging to respondent No. 6. He further submits that upon the
said application, the concerned Tehsildar constituted a team for
the demarcation of the land in question to ascertain its actual
possession. After the demarcation conducted by the team, it was
found that as many as 28 persons had encroached upon the land.
Ultimately, upon due inquiry and on the basis of the demarcation
report, the concerned Tehsildar passed an order dated
09.06.2014, holding that these 28 persons had indeed illegally
encroached upon the land of respondent No. 6. He submits that
the present petitioner, along with other persons, was granted a
patta in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 74/1 for residential
purposes. However, the petitioner, as well as the other persons,
illegally encroached upon the land bearing Khasra No. 55/1.
Therefore, while allowing the said application vide order dated
9.6.2014, the petitioner and the other encroachers were directed
to remove their unauthorized possession. The said order passed
by the concerned Tehsildar was challenged by the petitioners
before the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in an
appeal under Section 44(1) of the Code. After following due
process of law and after extending due opportunity of hearing, the
concerned SDO(R) dismissed the appeal vide order dated
20.4.2016, holding inter alia that the order passed by the
Tehsildar was well-merited. It was further observed that while the
petitioners and other persons were granted a lease in respect of
14
Khasra No. 74/1, they had illegally encroached upon the land
bearing Khasra No. 55/1 belonging to respondent No. 6 and
accordingly, the order passed by the Tehsildar was confirmed. He
also submits that when the said order of the SDO(R) was further
challenged before the Commissioner in a second appeal, the
Commissioner held that proper demarcation had not been
conducted. As a result, finding that the orders passed by the
concerned Tehsildar and the concerned SDO(R) could not be
sustained, the Commissioner directed that a fresh demarcation be
carried out in accordance with law vide order dated 12.9.2016. He
further submits that upon passing of the aforesaid order,
respondent No. 6 challenged the same before the Board of
Revenue. After a meticulous examination of the record and due
consideration of all material aspects, the Board of Revenue
passed the order dated 16.4.2018. The order passed by the
Board of Revenue is a detailed and reasoned order that
thoroughly addresses every aspect of the matter. It was found
that the demarcation was duly conducted and the present
petitioners deliberately refused to accept the notice of
demarcation, as such, the entire demarcation proceedings cannot
be said to be vitiated. Even otherwise, since the petitioners were
granted a lease/ patta in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 74/1,
they cannot be permitted to remain in illegal possession of land
bearing Khasra No. 55/1, which in fact belongs to respondent No.
6 . He further submit that subsequent to the passing of the said
order, the petitioner(s) challenged the same before this Court in
15
W.P.(C) No. 4373/2023. This Court, vide order dated 10.11.2025,
held that so far as Khasra No. 55/1 is concerned, the order
passed by the Board of Revenue suffers from neither perversity,
illegality nor any jurisdictional error. It was further observed in the
said order that the petitioner did not press any claim in respect of
Khasra No. 55/1, therefore, the claim regarding Khasra No. 55/1
stands rejected . However, it was further directed that the
concerned authority shall demarcate the land bearing Khasra No.
74/1 within an outer limit of 45 days from the date of receipt or
production of a copy of the said order, after following due
process of law and issuing notice to all concerned parties. Since
the petitioner(s) has already relinquished his rights in respect of
Khasra No. 55/1, he cannot question the notice dated
23.04.2026, which has been issued in pursuance of the order
dated 15.10.2024 as well as the order dated 10.11.2025 passed
in Contempt Case No. 389/2023 and W.P.(C) No. 4373/2023 and
connected petitions respectively. He further submits that the order
dated 10.11.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4373/2023 and
connected petitions has attained finality, as the said order has
never been challenged by the petitioners. In fact, all other
persons similarly situated have already complied with the order
and relinquished possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 55/1.
The present petitioners namely Kanhaiya Yadav, son of Paras
Yadav, Dhajaram Patel and six others, against whom notices
have been issued, are now challenging the said notices, despite
having no legal entitlement to do so. He submits that once this
16
Court, in W.P.(C) No. 4373/2023 and connected petitions,
categorically held vide order dated 10.11.2025 that the removal of
the petitioners' illegal encroachment on Khasra No. 55/1 suffers
from neither perversity nor illegality and that there is no
jurisdictional error in the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the
Board of Revenue (which confirmed the orders of the Tehsildar,
Korba and the SDO(R), Korba in proceedings under Section 50 of
the Code for removal of encroachment), the present petitioners
are legally precluded from challenging the same . He further
submits that in the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in the
aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners stated that they do not wish
to press any claim with regard to Khasra No. 55/1 and resultantly,
their claim concerning the same was rejected. As such, the
petitioners are now estopped from raising any claim in respect of
Khasra No. 55/1. He submits that having been granted a lease in
respect of land bearing Khasra No. 74/1, for which a demarcation
was directed to be conducted pursuant to the order dated
10.11.2025 passed by this Court, the impugned notices have
rightly been issued. The petitioners cannot be permitted to
challenge the same, particularly since the order dated 16.4.2018
passed by the Board of Revenue concerning Khasra No. 55/1
stands confirmed by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2025.
Hence, all the petitioners are bound to remove their unauthorized
possession from the land bearing Khasra No. 55/1.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
also perused the documents annexed with the petition with
17
utmost circumspection.
10.
From a perusal of the impugned notice(s), it is quite evident that
the same was issued under Section 250 of the Code for the
removal of encroachment from land bearing Khasra No. 55/1,
pursuant to the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 4373/2023 and connected petitions as well as the
order dated dated 9.6.2014 passed by this Court in Contempt
Case (C) No. 389/2023. It is further evident from the order dated
10.11.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4373/2023 and connected
matters, that the petitioners' claim in respect of land bearing
Khasra No. 55/1 was rejected by this Court and the concerned
petitioners have also clearly stated that they do not wish to raise
any claim concerning Khasra No. 55/1. The relevant paragraphs
of the said order reads as under:
10. It is pertinent to mention here that records of this case
also reveals that before demarcating the land bearing
Khasra No.55/1, notice was issued to the petitioners and,
thereafter, proceeding of demarcation had been done. The
order of Board of Revenue dated 16.04.2018, whereby the
order passed by the Tahsildar Korba and the Sub Divisional
Officer Korba in a proceeding under Section 250 of
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code for removal of illegal
encroachment of the petitioners of Khasra No.55/1 is
neither perverse nor illegal and there is no any jurisdictional
error.
11. Since, the petitioners do not want to raise any claim
with regard to Khasra No.55/1, therefore, claim regarding
Khasra No.55/1 is hereby rejected.
12. Considering facts of the case, nature of dispute,
submissions of counsel for the parties, above writ petitions
are disposed of directing the concerned respondent-
authority to constitute a team and demarcate the patta land
18
of the petitioners bearing Khasra No.74/1, within an outer
limit of ‘45 days’ from the date of receipt/production of copy
of this order, strictly in accordance with relevant
rules/law/regulation, after giving/issuing the notices to all
the concerns. So that, the petitioners can rehabilitate on the
said patta land, which has been allotted by the government
in their favour.
11. Apparently, the claim of the petitioners in respect of land bearing
Khasra No. 55/1 was rejected by this Court in W.P.(C) No.
4373/2023 and other connected petitions, which affirmed the
order dated 16.4.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue. Not only
this, this Court categorically held in the said order that the order
dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, confirming
the order dated 9.6.2014 passed by the Tehsildar, Korba, and the
order dated 20.4.2016 passed by the SDO(R), Korba in
proceedings under Section 250 of the Code for the removal of the
petitioners' encroachment from Khasra No. 55/1, suffers from
neither perversity nor illegality nor is there any jurisdictional error.
Furthermore, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the aforesaid order clearly
reveal that the petitioners relinquished their claim regarding
Khasra No. 55/1 and accordingly, their claim in respect of the said
Khasra number was rejected. Further, the direction for
demarcation was issued exclusively in respect of Khasra No. 74/1
and not Khasra No. 55/1. Consequently, the notice issued for the
removal of encroachment from Khasra No. 55/1 cannot be termed
illegal or arbitrary. Given that the order dated 10.11.2025 has
attained finality and remains unchallenged, the petitioners, by no
19
stretch of imagination, can challenge the order/notice of eviction
pertaining to land bearing Khasra No. 55/1. For ready reference,
the impugned eviction notice dated 23.04.2026(WPC No.2365 of
2026 ) is quoted below:
, - ( 0 0)
न्यायालय तहसीलदार कोरबा जिला कोरबा छ ग
// //
सूचना पत्र
/652/ 0/ 02026 , 23/04/2026
क्रमांक तह वा कोरबा दिनांक
,
प्रति
कन्हैया पिता पारस
राताखार कोरबा
- ( . .)
तहसील व जिला कोरबा छ ग
250 0 0 1959
अंतर्गत धारा भू रा संहिता
389/2023
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय छत्तीसगढ़ बिलासपुर के कंटेम्प्ट क्रमांक में
15/10/2024 WPC No- 4373/2023
आदेश दिनांक एवं एवं अन्य रिट याचिकाओं में निणर्य
10/11/2025 . . . 10/ -70/2011-12
दिनांक तथा इस न्यायालय के रा प्र क्र अ पारित आदेश दिनांक
09/06/2014 ( 0) 57/ -
एवं न्यायालय अनुविभागीय अधिकारी रा कोरबा के अपील प्रकरण क्रमांक अ
70/2013-14 20/04/2016
पारित आदेश दिनांक तथा राजस्व मण्डल छत्तीसगढ़ बिलासपुर के
. /10/191/2016 16/04/2018
प्रकरण क्रमांक आर एन पारित आदेश दिनांक के अनुपालन में ग्राम
0 0 0 16 0 0 55/1
कोरबा प ह नं तहसील व जिला कोरबा स्थि त वादभूमि ख नं से अवैध कब्जा
हटाने हेतु आदेशित किया गया है।
08/05/2026
अतः आपको सूचना दी जाती है कि दिनांक तक अप्राधिकृत
कब्जे की भूमि से अपना अप्राधिकृत कब्जा स्वयं हटा लेवें । अन्यथा शासकीय अमले से
अप्राधिकृत कब्जा हटाने की कार्यवाही की जावेगी तथा कब्जा हटाये जाने में जो भी खर्च होगा उसे
-
भू राजस्व के रूप में आपसे वसूली की जावेगी।
Sd/-
तहसीलदार
( 0 0)
कोरबा छ ग
CONTD.
20
. /653/ 0/ 0/2026 , 23/04/2026
पृ क्रमांक तह वा कोरबा दिनांक
-
प्रतिलिपिः
1. , -
कलेक्टर जिला कोरबा को सूचनार्थ सादर सम्प्रेषित ।
2. ( 0)
अनुविभागीय अधिकारी रा कोरबा सूचनार्थ सादर सम्प्रेषित ।
3. , -
थाना प्रभारी कोतवाली कोरबा जिला कोरबा को सूचनार्थ ।
4. /
राजस्व निरीक्षक हल्का पटवारी को सूचनार्थ एवं पालनार्थ ।
5. 0
आवेदक हरदीप सिंह पिता स्व प्रीतम सिंह राजपाल निवासी कोरबा को सूचनार्थ ।
Sd/-
तहसीलदार
( 0 0)
कोरबा छ ग
ल
12. Once the rights of the petitioners in respect of Khasra No. 55/1
have been rejected by this Court in the above writ petition, the
petitioners cannot challenge the same through a fresh writ
petition. The petitioners have no legal right to the land bearing
Khasra No. 55/1, as the same was never allotted to them. The
petitioners were allotted land bearing Khasra No. 74/1 and hence,
they must confine themselves strictly to the land bearing Khasra
No. 74/1. The order passed by the Board of Revenue
meticulously deals with each and every aspect of the matter. The
Board of Revenue specifically held that the Commissioner,
Bilaspur Division, failed to appreciate the matter in its true
perspective, whereas the orders passed by the Tehsildar and the
SDO(R) were found to be entirely in accordance with law.
Consequently, through a detailed and reasoned order, the claim
of the petitioners in respect of Khasra No. 55/1 was rejected by
the Board of Revenue, the apex revenue tribunal. The
21
confirmation of the order dated 16.4.2018 passed by the Board of
Revenue by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2025 has left no
room for the petitioners to challenge the same and the matter has
attained absolute finality. The petitioners, being unauthorized
encroachers, are liable to be evicted from the land bearing
Khasra No. 55/1.
13. It would be apt to observe here that the petitioners' case in
respect of Khasra No. 55/1 has already attained finality and
therefore upon the very same issue, the petitioners are precluded
from re-agitating the matter as the principle of res judicata would
apply. Once the matter has been decided in respect of Khasra
No. 55/1, holding that the order passed by the Board of Revenue
is in accordance with law, the petitioners cannot re-agitate the
same in any subsequent proceeding in respect of the said Khasra
Number. The rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial
determination from litigating the same question over again. This
Court, in categorical terms, has held in W.P.(C) No. 4373/2023
and other connected petitions that the claim of the petitioners in
respect of Khasra No. 55/1 cannot be considered, as the order of
the Board of Revenue dated 16.4.2018 is neither perverse nor
illegal and suffers from no jurisdictional error.
14.
In the matter of Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs.
Ram Kishori Gupta and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 748 , the following was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
para 28 :
22
28. In Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board [(1999)
5 SCC 590; 1998 SCC OnLine SC 947.] , a 3-Judge
Bench of this court affirmed that the principle of res
judicata is based on public policy and justice. It was
pointed out that the rule of res judicata prevents the
parties to a judicial determination from litigating the
same question over again, even though the
determination may be demonstrably wrong. It was held
that when proceedings attain finality, parties are bound
by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it.
They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action,
nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for
decision in the earlier litigation. It was pointed out that
section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, contains
provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of
the general doctrine of res judicata. It was observed that
the principles of res judicata would be equally applicable
in proceedings before administrative authorities. Further,
in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha
Chhindwara [1962 SCC OnLine SC 72; 1963 Supp (1)
SCR 172; AIR 1964 SC 1013.] , a Constitution Bench
observed that constructive res judicata is an artificial
form of res judicata and it postulates that if a plea could
have been taken by a party in a proceeding between
him and his opponent, he would not be permitted to take
that plea against the same party in a subsequent
proceeding which is based on the same cause of action.
Affirming this view in Devilal Modi v. State Tax Officer
[(1965) 16 STC 303 (SC); 1964 SCC OnLine SC 17;
(1965) 1 SCR 686; AIR 1965 SC 1150.] , a Constitution
Bench observed that this view is founded on the same
considerations applicable to res judicata, because if the
doctrine of constructive res judicata is not applied, it
would be open to a party to take one proceeding after
another and urge new grounds every time and that,
plainly, would be inconsistent with considerations of
public policy. Needless to state, these stellar principles
23
would not only apply to the parties to a dispute but
would also bind the Adjudicating Authorities seized of
such dispute, be they judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative.
15.
In the matter of B.S. Lalitha and others Vs. Bhuvanesh and
Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 860 , the following was
held in para 35, 39 & 42 :
35. The provision embodies a rule of conclusiveness that
is founded in considerations of public policy. It rests upon
the salutary doctrine that there must be a finality to
litigation, and that a party which has once succeeded or
failed on an issue should not be permitted to re-agitate
the same at a subsequent stage. The principle applies not
only between two separate suits but also between two
stages of the same litigation what is referred to as
‘interlocutory res judicata.’ In Satyadhyan Ghosal (supra),
a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Para 8 held:
“ The principle of res judicata applies also as
between two stages in the same litigation to this extent
that a court, whether a trial court or a higher court
having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way
will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again
at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings.”
39. We may further observe that Explanation IV to Section
11 of the CPC provides that “any matter which might and
ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in
such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter
directly and substantially in issue in such suit.” The
respondents' submission that the two applications were
filed under different sub-clauses of Order VII Rule 11, the
first under clause (d) alone and the second under clauses
(a), (b) and (d) is of no consequence. The ground that the
plaint does not disclose a cause of action [clause (a)] or is
defective [clause (b)] could have been, and indeed ought
to have been, raised in the first application. The mere
invocation of additional sub-clauses in the second
application does not take the matter outside the scope of
res judicata. The substance of the issue, whether the
24
plaint should be rejected on the ground that the suit is
barred by Section 6(5) of the H.S. Act, remains the same.
A party cannot circumvent the finality of an adverse order
by re-framing the same challenge under a different
procedural provision.
42. The second application is a transparent attempt to re-
agitate a concluded issue by dressing it in the garb of
Vineeta Sharma (supra), which, as we have noted above,
has no bearing on the core question decided in 2013. The
issue raised in the second application was directly and
substantially settled by the 2013 judgment. No different
factual or legal ground was raised that takes the second
application outside the scope of that settled
determination. On this ground alone, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
16. In view of the aforementioned position of law, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner cannot re-agitate any dispute
in respect of Khasra No. 55/1, which has already been
determined and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.
17. Encroachment is an unlawful intrusion that directly undermines
the rule of law and must be removed by order of the Court. The
nation at large continues to suffer from the detrimental effects of
illegal encroachments perpetrated by such persons. It is high time
that strict judicial orders are passed against these encroachers to
curb such unlawful conduct. No encroacher after finalization of
eviction proceedings shall be allowed to enter the encroached
land save and except permitted by the competent Court of law.
18. In the matter of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab
Khan Gulab Khan and Others reported in (1997) 11 SCC 121 ,
the following was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 30 :
30. Encroachment of public property undoubtedly
obstructs and upsets planned development, ecology
25
and sanitation. Public property needs to be
preserved and protected. It is but the duty of the
State and local bodies to ensure the same. This
would answer the second question. As regards the
fourth question, it is to reiterate that judicial review is
the basic structure of the Constitution. Every citizen
has a fundamental right to redress the perceived
legal injury through judicial process. The
encroachers are no exceptions to that constitutional
right to judicial redressal. The constitutional court,
therefore, has a constitutional duty as sentinel on
the qui vive to enforce the right of a citizen when he
approaches the court for perceived legal injury,
provided he establishes that he has a right to
remedy. When an encroacher approaches the court,
the court is required to examine whether the
encroacher had any right and to what extent he
would be given protection and relief. In that behalf, it
is the salutary duty of the State or the local bodies or
any instrumentality to assist the court by placing
necessary factual position and legal setting for
adjudication and for granting/refusing relief
appropriate to the situation. Therefore, the mere fact
that the encroachers have approached the court
would be no ground to dismiss their cases. The
contention of the appellant-Corporation that the
intervention of the court would give impetus to the
encroachers to abuse the judicial process is
untenable. As held earlier, if the appellant-
Corporation or any local body or the State acts with
vigilance and prevents encroachment immediately,
the need to follow the procedure enshrined as an
inbuilt fair procedure would be obviated. But if they
allow the encroachers to remain in settled
possession sufficiently for a long time, which would
be a fact to be established in an appropriate case,
necessarily suitable procedure would be required to
26
be adopted to meet the fact-situation and that,
therefore, it would be for the respondent concerned
and also for the petitioner to establish the respective
claims and it is for the court to consider as to what
would be the appropriate procedure required to be
adopted in the given facts and circumstances.
19. In light of the foregoing factual matrix, the principles laid down in
the aforesaid judgment, the concurrent findings of the concerned
revenue authorities and the binding and conclusive adjudication
rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4373/2023 and connected
petitions vide order dated 10.11.2025, this Court is of the opinion
that the challenge mounted by the petitioners against the eviction
notices dated 23.04.2026 is wholly devoid of merit, vexatious and
an abuse of the process of law. The petitioners having
unequivocally relinquished their claims regarding Khasra No. 55/1
and the order dated 10.11.2025 having attained absolute finality,
no legal impediment exists to forestall the execution of the lawful
eviction proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petitions, being an
untenable attempt to re-litigate a settled issue and evade
statutory consequences, are liable to be dismissed and the
authorities are fully empowered to proceed with the immediate
clearance of the unauthorized encroachment in accordance with
law.
20.
Under these circumstances, the petitioners can no longer justify
their illegal encroachment, thus, the impugned notices have been
rightly issued and the petitioners are required to vacate their
unauthorized encroachment upon the land bearing Khasra No.
27
55/1.
21.
Having regard to the ongoing festival of Deepawali, the petitioners
are hereby granted a final grace period of 15 days to remove the
encroachment. Upon the expiration of the said 15 days, the
authorities are directed to remove the encroachment forthwith,
without any further notice or reference in this regard, particularly
since this Court, vide its order dated 10.11.2025 passed in WPC
No.4373/2023 and other connected petitions, has already
rejected the claim of the petitioners.
22. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed with no order
as to costs.
23. The Respondents/authorities are directed to execute the
impugned eviction orders upon the expiration of the 15 days
grace period granted herein, in strict accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay
28
WPC No. 2365 of 2026 and WPC No. 2367 of 2026
HEAD NOTE
The principle of conclusiveness is rooted in public policy and
is premised on the need to ensure finality in litigation. Accordingly,
a party who has once succeeded or failed on a particular issue
cannot be permitted to reopen or re-agitate the same issue in
subsequent proceedings.