NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:9507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4277 of 2019

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Thakur Vishwaraj Singh (Dead)

Through Legal Heirs:

1. Smt. Shashi Prabha Devi, Wd/o. Late Thakur Vishwaraj Singh, 2. Shri Yogeshwar Raj Singh, S/o Thakur Vishwaraj Singh, Both R/o Motimahal Kawardha, District Kabirdham, C.G.

3. Smt. Manjri Devi, W/o. Rudradev Singh, D/o. Thakur Vishwaraj Singh, R/o.

Teekamgarh, M.P.

4. Smt. Tawarika Devi @ Vasudhara Devi, W/o. Sanjay Singh D/o. Thakur Vishwaraj Singh, R/o. Bisau Palace, Hotel Chandpol Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner/ State : Shri Anil S. Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate alongwith Shri Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Shri Deepak Diwaker, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

24.02.2026

1. The petitioner/ State has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(1) To kindly quash the impugned order dated 17/10/2018 passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure P-1).

(2) To kindly quash the impugned order dated 06/03/2007 passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure P-2).

(3) To allow this petition and permit the Revenue Officer to proceed U/s 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and remove the encroachment against the respondent no. 1 in the interests of justice.

(4) To pass any other suitable writ/order/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the present case to meet the interests of justice.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that one Yashwant Rao made a complaint before the Collector to the effect that respondent No.1 started construction of a complex over the government land bearing Survey No.596 (old number) and 597 (new number), admeasuring 6478 sq. mt. situated at Street 12, Plot No.30, Municipal Area Kawardha. The Collector took cognizance and initiated proceedings against respondent No.1 and vide order dated 5.1.2004 directed the parties to maintain status-quo. An application was moved by respondent No.1 on 5.2.2004 before the Collector to vacate the stay order dated 5.1.2004 and the said application was rejected vide order dated 5.2.2004. Thereafter, respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide order dated 6.3.2007, wherein it was held that no opportunity of hearing was provided by the Collector to respondent No.1. The petitioner/ State filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue seeking recall of the order dated 6.3.2007 but the said review petition was dismissed. The State has challenged the order dated 6.3.2007 and subsequent order dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ State would submit that respondent No.1 has encroached over the nazul land bearing Survey No.597 and part of Survey No.596 admeasuring 0.10 acres. He would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Collector and thereafter, an interim order was granted in favour of respondent No.2. He would contend that the Board of Revenue committed an error of law in allowing the revision preferred by respondent No.1 and in dismissing the review petition. He would submit that if opportunity of hearing was not afforded by the Collector while passing the orders dated 5.1.2004 and 5.2.2004, the Board of Revenue ought to have remitted back the matter to the Collector to decide it afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. He would pray to quash both the orders passed by the Board of Revenue.

4. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the issue involved in the present matter had already been resolved by the Collector vide order dated 28.2.2000, which was affirmed by the Commissioner vide its order dated 31.8.2001 and subsequently, it was affirmed by the State Government vide order dated 3.