Prolonged unauthorised occupation does not confer a right to resist lawful eviction under Section 248.

The petitioner claimed to have resided for approximately 20–25 years in a house situated at Village Kalmi, Raigarh, and relied on governmental amenities, payment of Gram Panchayat taxes, electricity bills, and a prior payment of penalty for construction to assert settled possession.

The Naib Tahsildar issued an eviction notice dated 3 November 2021 under Section 248(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, directing the petitioner to remove his alleged encroachment within eight days.

The State authorities alleged that the petitioner was an encroacher over Khasra No. 134, area 0.858 hectares, and that the order passed in the Section 248(1) proceedings had not been challenged.

The land had been allotted by the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation to Respondent No. 4, Jindal Steel and Power Limited.

Although approximately 60–62 encroachers had initially occupied the land, all except the petitioner had allegedly handed over possession to Respondent No. 4.

The petitioner also claimed that his representation seeking resettlement and rehabilitation remained pending.

Section 248(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 authorises the revenue authorities to take action for removal of unauthorised occupation or encroachment over land.

Prolonged or settled possession, by itself, does not create a subsisting legal right to remain on land where the occupant has been found to be an encroacher and the land has been validly allotted to another party.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that reliance on government facilities, payment of taxes, or occupation for a long period cannot defeat lawful eviction in the absence of an established title or other enforceable legal right.

No specific judicial precedent was cited or applied in the judgment.

The Court accepted the State’s position that the petitioner had been found to be an encroacher over the subject land in proceedings under Section 248(1), and noted that the underlying order had never been challenged.

It also gave weight to the fact that the land had been allotted to Respondent No. 4 and that the other encroachers had already surrendered possession, leaving the petitioner as the sole remaining occupant.

In these circumstances, the petitioner’s long occupation, payment of local taxes, receipt of electricity, and access to public amenities were insufficient to establish a subsisting legal right to retain possession.

The pending request for resettlement or rehabilitation likewise did not prevent enforcement of the eviction notice, particularly when the land was already allotted to Respondent No. 4.

Prolonged occupation and the availability of public services did not justify protection from eviction.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed for want of merit, with no relief granted to the petitioner.