Authorities must consider an encroacher’s reply and settlement application before taking coercive removal action.

The petitioner, a potter residing at Village Kauhi, District Durg, challenged the removal warrant dated 27.08.2026 issued by the Naib Tahsildar in respect of government land allegedly encroached upon by him.

The petitioner claimed that he had been residing on the land for a long period and had earlier obtained an order directing the authorities to consider his application for settlement.

The State contended that the petitioner was an encroacher having no legal right to reside on government land and was liable to be removed.

The petitioner sought quashing of the removal warrant, implementation of the earlier direction concerning allotment of land, and settlement of suitable government land for his livelihood and residence.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate judicial interference against the removal warrant dated 27.08.2026 issued in relation to his alleged encroachment over government land.

Whether the concerned authorities were required to consider the petitioner’s reply to the removal proceedings and any application seeking settlement of suitable government land for his residence or livelihood.

Whether coercive steps for removal ought to be stayed pending consideration of the petitioner’s representation and settlement application.

The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness and lawful administrative decision-making, requiring the authorities to consider the petitioner’s reply and representations in accordance with law before taking further action.

It also applied the principle that an alleged encroacher cannot claim an automatic right to remain on government land, while any application for settlement of government land must be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable law and does not create an enforceable entitlement by itself.

The Court further exercised its writ jurisdiction to grant limited interim protection so that the statutory or administrative authorities could first consider the petitioner’s grievance.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s title or determine the legality of the alleged encroachment.

Since the immediate grievance concerned the removal warrant, it directed the petitioner to submit an appropriate reply within 15 days of receiving the order.

The authorities were then directed to consider the reply and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 60 days.

Any pending or fresh application for settlement of another piece of government land was also required to be considered by the authorities.

To preserve the effectiveness of this process, the Court restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps for 60 days, while expressly clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits.

The petitioner was directed to submit his reply within 15 days and to apply for settlement of suitable government land for residence; the competent authorities were directed to consider these representations and pass orders in accordance with law within 60 days.

No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during that 60-day period.

The Court expressly left all questions on the merits open.