1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 3252 of 2016

• Dhruwnarayan Pandey S/o Shri Chandrabhushan Pandey,

Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ramnagar, Lailunga, Tah

Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh,

(Chhattisgarh)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, Distt.

Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh,

(Chhattisgarh)

3. Tahsildar, Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Lailunga, Distt.

Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

Shri M. K. Sinha, Advocate

For Respondent-State

Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. AG

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board

23/12/2016

1.

The petitioner would assail the legality and validity of the

appellate order passed by the SDO (Revenue), Lailunga,

District Raigarh, whereby his appeal under Section 44 of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the

2

Code, 1959') to challenge the order passed by the Tahsildar

in exercise of power under Section 248 of the Code, 1959

has been rejected.

2.

By order dated 25.01.2016 the Tahsildar, Lailunga has

directed the petitioner to remove encroachment from the

government land and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, which the

petitioner has already paid.

3.

It is argued that the petitioner is in possession of a piece of

government land having built a house over it and the land

falls within the municipal area, therefore, the Tahsildar has

no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Section 248 of the

Code, 1959.

4.

Nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the plea

that the land is not revenue paying land but belongs to the

Nagar Panchayat. If the land is revenue land which has

been encroached by the petitioner, the Tahsildar has

jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Section 248 of the

Code, 1959.

5.

The petitioner has not demonstrated about his right, title or

interest over the property except challenging the authority of

the Tahsildar. Considering the fact that the petitioner is not

entitled to occupied land, indulgence under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is not warranted. Consequently, the writ

3

petition is dismissed, however, the petitioner is allowed one

month's time to make alternative arrangement. The

respondents shall allow the petitioner to remain in

occupation for one month within which time the petitioner

shall remove the encroachment, failing which the

respondents may execute the order on or after 31.01.2017.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Nirala