Lorensh Dehere @ Prince vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1533 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Lorensh Dehere @ Prince vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026

                                               1




Digitally
signed
by                                                                            NAFR
SHAYNA
KADRI

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                     WPC No. 1740 of 2026


            1 - Lorensh Dehere @ Prince S/o Ramesh Dehere Aged About 25 Years
            R/o Village Sambalpur, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, Tahsil Nawagarh,
            Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                     ... Petitioner(s)


                                             versus


            1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
            Development Department, Manatralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
            Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

            2 - Collector Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

            3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh, Distt. Bemetara,
            Chhattisgarh.

            4 - Tahsildar Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

            5 - Gram Panchayat Khapari Through Sarpanch, Village Sambalpur,
            Tahsil Nawagarh, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Roshan Dubey and Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocates

For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

10/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

"10.1 That, quash the impugned order dated 10-03-2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.4.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to disturb the petitioner, who running the shops/house in the part of land bearing Khasra No.370 area 0.02 hectare situated at Bus Stand Sambalpur, Tahsil Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.).

10.3 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is running a

shop/house situated on land bearing Khasra No. 370,

admeasuring 0.02 hectare (out of total 0.430 hectare), located at

Bus Stand Sambalpur, Tahsil Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.).

It is the case of the petitioner that he has been allotted the said

shop/house for carrying out business of selling food items, and is

operating the same with due permission granted by the competent

authorities including the Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that

the petitioner has been continuously running his shop/house for

the last 10 years after obtaining due permission from the

Sarpanch and other officials of the Gram Panchayat, and his

possession and business have been peaceful and uninterrupted

during this period. The petitioner submits that all of a sudden, the

Tahsildar, Nandghat, issued a notice dated 30.01.2026 directing

removal of the petitioner's shop/house within a period of two days.

Aggrieved by such abrupt and arbitrary action, the petitioner

approached this Court by filing WPC No. 504/2026, which was

disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2026 granting liberty to the

respondent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in

accordance with Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue

Code. Thereafter, within a short span of time, on 05.02.2026, the

respondent No. 4 issued another notice, but only to the petitioner

and one other person, out of nearly 70 similarly situated

shopkeepers and occupants, alleging that the petitioner is an

encroacher over the land in question. In response to the said

notice, the petitioner submitted a reply, specifically pointing out

that several other persons have also been allotted and are

occupying the same land, yet no action has been taken against

them. The petitioner supported his claim by filing photographs and

other relevant documents demonstrating discriminatory and

selective action on the part of the authorities. It is further

contended that despite being similarly situated, the petitioner

alone has been targeted, thereby depriving him of his right to

carry on business. Such action is alleged to be arbitrary and

violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Ultimately, without properly considering the petitioner's reply and

without conducting a fair and proper enquiry, the respondent No.

4/Tahsildar, Nandghat, passed the impugned eviction order dated

10.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) against the petitioner, which has led to

filing of the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar has

passed the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) in

proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, whereby the petitioner has been directed to

remove his possession from the land in question on the allegation

that construction has been raised for commercial purposes. It is

contended that, in fact, nearly 70 shops have been constructed

over the same land and are being run by various persons;

however, the petitioner alone has been arbitrarily singled out for

eviction, which clearly reflects discriminatory and selective action

on the part of the respondent authorities. It is further submitted

that against the said order dated 10.03.2026, the petitioner has

already preferred an appeal before the competent Sub-Divisional

Officer (SDO), which is presently pending consideration. Along

with the appeal, an application under Section 52 for grant of

interim stay has also been filed. Despite the pendency of the said

proceedings, the respondent authorities, ignoring this material

fact, have proceeded to issue a further notice dated 08.04.2026

directing removal of the alleged encroachment within an

unreasonably short period of two days, thereby compelling the

petitioner to approach this Court. Learned counsel submits that

the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, and

has been passed in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the

Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner, who

belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and is economically

weak, has been residing and carrying on a small business along

with his family members on the said land for a long period, and

the action of the respondents has jeopardized his livelihood and

shelter. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities

have failed to follow the due procedure prescribed under the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and have taken steps for

eviction without considering the aspect of rehabilitation. The

petitioner has no alternative accommodation and has been in

peaceful possession for several years, having constructed the

house/shop with due permission of the Gram Panchayat.

Learned counsel also contends that no proper opportunity of

hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the

impugned order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner has been deprived of his right to effectively respond

to the allegations and has been subjected to arbitrary action. It is

further argued that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to

carry on business, whereas several other similarly situated

persons have been allowed to continue their establishments

without any interference. The selective issuance of notice only to

the petitioner and one other person, out of nearly 70 occupants,

clearly establishes hostile discrimination. In view of the aforesaid

submissions, learned counsel prays that the impugned order

dated 10.03.2026 as well as the consequential notice dated

08.04.2026 be set aside and appropriate relief be granted to the

petitioner in the interest of justice.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on

behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order was

passed as far back as on 10.03.2026. Despite availability of an

efficacious remedy and passage of sufficient time, the petitioner

has failed to approach this Court with due promptitude, and

therefore, the present petition suffers from delay and laches. It is,

however, fairly conceded by learned State counsel that a

subsequent notice dated 08.04.2026 has indeed been issued by

the competent authority for removal of the alleged encroachment.

Nonetheless, it is contended that the said action is in continuation

of the earlier order and does not warrant interference in exercise

of extraordinary jurisdiction.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of

the record, it is evident that the impugned order dated 10.03.2026

has been passed by the Tahsildar in proceedings under Section

248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code directing removal of

the alleged encroachment. It is not in dispute that against the

said order, the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy

by preferring an appeal/revision before the competent Sub-

Divisional Officer (SDO), which is presently pending

consideration. It is also borne out from the record that along with

the said appeal/revision, the petitioner has filed an application

under Section 52 seeking grant of interim stay, which is yet to be

decided.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, particularly the

fact that the petitioner has approached before the concerned SDO

while filing revision against the order dated 10.03.2026 and has

also filed an application for grant of stay before the SDO, however

till date, the concerned SDO has not passed any order, this Court

deems it appropriate to protect the interest of the petitioner till

such application is decided.

7. Accordingly, it is directed that the concerned authorities shall not

take any coercive steps in respect of dispossession of the

petitioner from the land in dispute till an order on the application

for stay is passed by the concerned SDO.

8. Learned State counsel is directed to inform the concerned

authority about passing of this order forthwith.

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present

petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

                                            (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Shayna                                               Judge