SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SMT. DEVKI CHAKRADHARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/1398/2022



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:22850

NAFR

SHYNA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

AJAY

Digitally signed WPC No. 1398 of 2022

by SHYNA AJAY

Date:

2026.05.16

16:39:30 +0530

Smt. Devki Chakradhari W/o Shri Ramu Singh Chakradhari, Aged About

48 Years, Occupation House Wife, Ex Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat

Datrengi, Janpad Panchayat Palari, R/o Village And Post Datrengi,

District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural

Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex, Atal

Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Collector Balodabajar District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balodabajar District Balodabajar

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Palari, District

Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate

##PAGE2##

2

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

14/05/2026

1. The petitioner challenges the recovery order dated 4.2.2022 for

Rs.30,06,539/-, passed by Respondent No.3- Sub Divisional

Officer(R), Balodabajar, District Balodabajar-Bhatapara (CG). The

petitioner contends that the order was passed without due inquiry

and Respondent No.3 acted without jurisdiction under Section 92

of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (in short “the Act”).

Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that Section 89 of the Act is

the sole provision governing adjudication of liability and that the

power to conduct such enquiry is vested exclusively in the

Collector (prescribed authority). Since the mandatory procedure of

adjudication was bypassed in favour of recovery proceedings, the

order suffers from a manifest legal error. Hence, the petitioner

seeks quashing of the said order.

2. By way of this Petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : -

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue an appropriate writ by

quashing the impugned order dated

04.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) with complete

proceedings of Revenue Case No.

202012210200030/92-A/89/2020-21

(Annexure P-2) pending before SDO

Revenue Balodabajar, District Balodabojar

Bhatapara (C.G.)

2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

##PAGE3##

3

pleased to call for the record from the Court

of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

Balodabajar with Inquiry report if any for

kind perusal of this Hon'ble court.

3. Any other relief, which may be suitable

in the facts and circumstances of the case,

may also be granted.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is

the former Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Datrengi, Janpad

Panchayat Bilaigarh (District Balodabazar), elected in 2015. After

a 2019 news report regarding sand mining/royalty irregularities, an

enquiry committee alleged that Rs.30,06,539/- was mismanaged

by the Panchayat. Based solely on the enquiry, respondent No.4

communicated respondent No.3 {SDO(R)} to recover the amount

from the petitioner. A recovery case was registered in 2020 and a

show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner

contends that Section 92 of the Act (Recovery) was invoked

prematurely and illegally. The petitioner filed a reply and also filed

an application on 18.10.2021 challenging the maintainability of

recovery proceedings. The petitioner raised a preliminary

objection that an enquiry and adjudication under Section 89 of the

Act must be completed as prerequisite before any recovery

execution under Section 92 can commence. On 4.2.2022, the

Presiding Officer dismissed this plea without considering that no

formal order of liability had been passed. The concerned SDO(R)

has now ordered the petitioner to deposit the amount or face 30

days in civil jail, despite lack of a proper hearing or witness

statements. Hence, this Petition.

##PAGE4##

4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

recovery order suffers from non-application of mind, denial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top