Chhattisgarh High Court quashes Sarpanch no-confidence proceedings, citing vague charges and possible retaliation for an encroachment complaint.

The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sarkipar, challenged no-confidence proceedings initiated on a proposal dated 21.09.2026, and the consequential notice dated 24.09.2026 fixing a meeting for 04.10.2026.

The proposal alleged, in general terms, that she failed to provide accounts, consult Panchas, attend to Panchayat work and properly use Panchayat funds, but stated no specific instances or particulars.

The petitioner alleged that the motion was retaliatory: on 17.09.2026, she had complained of Government-land encroachments by several Panchas, some of whom joined in proposing the motion four days later.

On the Court’s direction, the State reported that the encroachment allegations appeared to have substance, although no final enquiry had been completed and the alleged encroachments had not been removed.

1. Whether the no-confidence proceedings could continue where the proposal contained only general allegations and the surrounding circumstances raised a concern that it followed the petitioner’s complaint against some of the proposers.

2. Whether the Revenue authority should be directed to enquire into the petitioner’s complaint of encroachment over Government land.

Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, read with Rule 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, governed the impugned no-confidence process.

The Court stated that the SDO (Revenue), while exercising jurisdiction in relation to such a motion, must apply its mind to the material and relevant circumstances and cannot act merely as a conduit for the proposal.

It also referred to Mahendra Kumar Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(C) No. 4648 of 2026, as authority concerning proposals based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations and the relevance of surrounding circumstances.

The proposal did not identify any particular transaction, amount, work, resolution, date or other material supporting the allegations of financial misuse or misconduct.

The Court also considered the close timing between the petitioner’s encroachment complaint and the motion, the participation of persons named in that complaint, and the State’s indication that the encroachment allegations appeared to have substance.

In those circumstances, the authority was required to examine whether the proposal rested on genuine, legally relevant grounds rather than simply allowing the process to proceed without applying its mind.

The Court therefore held that the proceedings could not be sustained in their existing form.

It directed the SDO (Revenue), Balodabazar, to enquire into the petitioner’s encroachment complaint and submit a report to the competent Revenue Authority; if encroachment is established, the competent authority must take action for its removal in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that fresh no-confidence proceedings in accordance with law are not barred.