NEHARSAI @RAJU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,

1

CGHC010349712021 2026:CGHC:39349
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5409 of 2021
AVINASH
SHARMA
1 - Neharsai @Raju S/o Bodhram Sarthi Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kalmi,
Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date:
2026.09.09
15:00:30 +0530
2 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
3 - Naib Tahsildar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
4 - General Manager (Public Relation) Jindal Steel And Power Limited, Kharsiya,
Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rohan Kumbhare appears on behalf of Shri
Bhaskar Jha, Advocates.
For State/respondent : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, PL.
For Respondent No.4 : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri
Udit Khatri, Shri Ishan Singh Rathore and Ms. Ananya
Pandey, Advocates.
S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
08/09/2026
1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned eviction notice dated
03.11.2021 issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Raigarh Chhattisgarh by which,
petitioner was directed to remove his illegal encroachment within 8 days,
failing which, encroachment will be removed in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is residing in village

2
Kalmi, Tahsil and District Raigarh for more than 20-25 years and constructed
a house there upon. In the said village, State Government provided the
facilities of Anganbadi centers, water and electricity connection and Rashan
and job card to the villagers. The petitioner has been paying tax to the Gram
Panchayat. Thereafter, a revenue proceeding was also initiated against the
petitioner in the year 2009. Naib Tahsildar Raigarh has issued a notice dated
03.11.2021 to the petitioner stating therein that he does not possess any
documents of his ownership/right over the subject land therefore an order of
his dispossession from the subject land is being passed under the provisions
of section 248(1) of C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959 and he should hand over
possession within 8 days otherwise his possession will be removed. It
appears the authorities have granted Patta of the land to Jindal Power and
steel on which the villagers are already residing for many years that too
without recommendation of Panchayat, without proclamation and without
following the due procedure. The petitioner had already paid penalty of Rs.
1000/- for construction of his house on the land through government challan.
The receipt of payment of tax to the Panchayat, the receipt of payment of
electricity bill and initiations of revenue proceedings in year 2009 would
suggest that the petitioner in the settled possession for more than 20-25
years. He would next submits that the petitioner has also made
representation for resettlement and rehabilitation to the Collector Raigarh but
without considering that the same is pending consideration, impugned
eviction notice in exercise of powers under Section 248 (1) of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has been issued. Dispossessing the
petitioner from his dwelling house without making any provision for his

3
settlement /rehabilitation is violative of his constitutional right. It is also
inhuman to dispossess poor persons without making provisions for their
resettlement / rehabilitation.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the revenue
authorities have found petitioner to be an encroacher of land bearing Khasra
No.134, rakba 0.858 hectare and accordingly, proceeding under Section 248
(1) of the CGLRC has been drawn and order has been passed therein which
has never been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the authorities have
rightly directed the petitioner to remove his encroachment. Further, the
possibility of resettlement of petitioner on the subject land also does not
stand of reasonable footing as the subject land has already been allotted to
Respondent No.4.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that the subject land was
allotted to him, however, around 60-62 encroacher encroached his land but
none of them approached this Court except petitioner. As of now, he submits
that he has been handed over the possession of the subject land by the
encroachers, the only encroacher left is petitioner who has not complied with
impugned eviction notice.
5. Learned State counsel submits that the Chhattisgarh State Industrial
Development Corporation is the one who allotted the land in question and
many of the encroachers have handed over the possession to Respondent
No.4, except petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering
that subject land was allotted to Respondent No.4 by the Chhattisgarh State
Industrial Development Corporation and out of 60-62 encroachers, only

4
petitioner approached this Court and only he is left to hand over the
possession of the subject land to Respondent No.4, in such circumstances,
petitioner cannot be allowed to occupy the land in question as an encroacher
when admittedly the land in question has been allotted to Respondent No.4.
7. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, I find no material on record
to conclude that the impugned eviction notice dated 03.11.2021 has been
issued arbitrarily or without authority of law. The petitioner, having failed to
establish any subsisting legal right to remain in possession of the subject
land, cannot claim protection merely on the ground of prolonged occupation
that too when orders in a proceeding under Section 248 (1) of the CGLRC
has been passed which has admittedly never been challenged by the
petitioner.
8. Consequently, this Writ Petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash