Pending Section 248 proceedings, encroachment claims must be decided by the Tehsildar in accordance with law.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 had encroached upon Government land situated between the main road and the petitioner’s property in Ward No. 21, Kurmipara, Bemetara, and had constructed an unauthorized temple thereon without lawful permission.

The petitioner claimed ownership of Khasra No. 649/3 and submitted a complaint before the Tahsildar on 28 May 2024 seeking removal of the encroachment.

The Tahsildar thereafter passed an order dated 16 July 2024 directing stoppage of the unauthorized construction.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 continued construction despite that order and that repeated representations to the revenue, municipal and police authorities yielded no effective action.

The petitioner further stated that this Court had directed maintenance of status quo regarding the construction on 26 September 2024, allegedly resulting in the filing of a pending contempt petition when construction continued.

The respondents submitted that proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“CGLRC”) were already pending before the Tahsildar and that the petitioner should pursue that statutory remedy.

1. Whether the High Court should directly adjudicate the alleged encroachment of Government land and order demolition of the structure when proceedings under Section 248 of the CGLRC were pending before the Tahsildar.

2. Whether the competent authority could take coercive action or demolish the alleged unauthorized construction without complying with the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards prescribed by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.

3. Whether the pending statutory proceedings should be directed to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Section 248 of the CGLRC provides the statutory mechanism for determining and taking action against unauthorized occupation or encroachment upon Government land.

In Union of India v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 14 SCC 62, the Supreme Court directed that no unauthorized religious construction should be carried out or permitted on public streets, public parks or other public places, and that existing unauthorized religious structures should be reviewed and dealt with appropriately.

Relying on Vinod Soni v. Rajesh Kumar Sahu, WA No. 389 of 2016, the Court reiterated that no person may establish a temple by encroaching upon public land and that religious or spiritual claims cannot override the rule of law.

Under Shri Manohar Bapurao Khorgade v. State of Maharashtra, the authority must follow the procedure prescribed by law and cannot act otherwise when the law requires a matter to be dealt with in a particular manner.

Further, In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, (2025) 5 SCC 1, requires prior show-cause notice, adequate service, disclosure of the alleged violations, opportunity of personal hearing, recording of hearing minutes, and a reasoned final order before demolition or coercive action.

The Court declined to independently determine whether Respondent No. 2 had encroached upon Government land because that factual and legal question was already pending before the competent authority under Section 248 of the CGLRC.

Since the statutory proceedings constituted the appropriate mechanism for examining the land records, alleged encroachment and legality of the construction, the High Court considered a direct demolition order premature.

It accordingly required the Tahsildar to examine the petitioner’s grievance and the relevant material independently and in accordance with law.

At the same time, the Court emphasized that if encroachment and unauthorized construction were established, appropriate action could be taken, but only after granting Respondent No. 2 and other affected stakeholders a fair hearing and complying with the Supreme Court’s demolition safeguards.

The Court therefore balanced the need to protect public land against the requirement of statutory procedure and natural justice.

The Tahsildar was directed to determine whether Respondent No. 2 had illegally occupied Government land and raised unauthorized construction thereon and, if so, to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Before any adverse or coercive action, the Tahsildar was required to provide due opportunity of hearing and comply with the procedural safeguards laid down in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.

The proceedings were directed to be decided expeditiously, subject to there being no legal impediment.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the alleged encroachment or unauthorized construction.