Raj Singh Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1535 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Raj Singh Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026

                                                  1




Digitally
signed
by                                                                         NAFR
SHAYNA
KADRI

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                     WPC No. 1738 of 2026


            1 - Raj Singh Banjare S/o Pokhan Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o
            Ward No. 8, Sambalpur, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, Tahsil
            Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)
                                                                  ... Petitioner(s)


                                            versus


            1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
            Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
            Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
            2 - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)
            3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh, District Bemetara
            (C.G.)
            4 - Tahsildar Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.)
            5 - Gram Panchayat Khapari Through Sarpanch, Village Sambalpur,
            Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)
                                                                ... 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) issued by the Tahsildar Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.).

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to disturb the petitioner, who running the Hotel in the part of land bearing Khasra No. 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 brother of

Aman Banjare, in whose favour permission/licence has been

granted by the Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI),

Government of Chhattisgarh, for carrying on the business of

selling various food items. Pursuant to such permission, the

petitioner's brother has been running a hotel on land bearing

Khasra No. 370, admeasuring 0.02 hectare (part of total 0.430

hectare), situated at Bus Stand Sambalpur, Tahsil Nandghat,

District Bemetara. The licence for running the said hotel stands in

the name of the petitioner's brother, who is the actual owner and

operator of the shop. The present petitioner has no independent

right over the said business except that the electricity connection

stands in his name. Relevant documents, including the FSSAI

licence and electricity records, substantiate the same. It is the

case of the petitioner that without issuing any prior notice or

affording an opportunity of hearing either to him or to his brother,

the respondent authorities proceeded to treat the occupation as

illegal encroachment. No information or show cause notice was

served prior to initiating action, thereby violating the principles of

natural justice. The petitioner further submits that no reasonable

opportunity was provided to respond, and the authorities abruptly

directed eviction within a very short stipulated time. The

petitioner's brother has been running the hotel for the last 10

years after obtaining due permission from the Sarpanch and other

officials of the Gram Panchayat, and the business has been

continuing peacefully for a considerable period. It is further stated

that the Tahsildar, Nandghat, issued a notice dated 30.01.2026

directing removal of the alleged encroachment within two days.

Aggrieved by such arbitrary action, the petitioner approached this

Court by filing WPC No. 500/2026, which was disposed of vide

order dated 03.02.2026 with a direction granting liberty to the

authorities to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with

Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. Thereafter,

within a short span of time, the respondent No. 4 again issued a

notice dated 05.02.2026, but only to the present petitioner,

alleging him to be an encroacher, despite the fact that there are

around 70 similarly situated shopkeepers and occupants on the

same land. The petitioner contends that such selective action is

arbitrary and discriminatory. In response to the said notice, the

petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 09.02.2026, pointing out

that several other persons are occupying and carrying on

business on the same land, yet no action has been taken against

them. Supporting documents, photographs and materials were

also furnished to demonstrate discriminatory treatment. However,

without properly considering the reply and without conducting a

fair and proper enquiry, the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar, Nandghat,

passed the impugned eviction order dated 10.03.2026 against the

petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the present petition has

been filed.

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

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

proceedings purportedly 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

submitted that, in fact, nearly 70 similarly situated shops have

been constructed over the same land; however, the petitioner

alone has been singled out for action, which clearly demonstrates

arbitrariness and discriminatory exercise of power. It is further

submitted that being aggrieved by the said order dated

10.03.2026, the petitioner has already preferred a statutory

appeal before the competent Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), which

is 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 appeal and stay application, the

respondent authorities, ignoring this material fact, proceeded to

issue a further notice dated 08.04.2026 directing removal of the

alleged encroachment within an unreasonably short period of two

days. In these circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained

to approach this Court. Learned counsel submits that the

impugned order as well as the subsequent action of the

respondents are wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, and

therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the action of

the respondent authorities is in clear violation of Articles 14, 21

and 300-A of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has been

deprived of his rights without following due process of law. It is

also contended that the notice itself is fundamentally flawed and

illegal, inasmuch as the shop/hotel in question is being run by the

petitioner's brother, in whose name all permissions and licences

stand. Despite this, the notice has been issued to the present

petitioner, and does not even correctly mention the name of the

actual person concerned, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.

Learned counsel further submits that no proper opportunity of

hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the

impugned order. The petitioner has been deprived of his right to

effectively explain his position, and the principles of natural justice

have been grossly violated. It is also submitted that the petitioner

has been arbitrarily deprived of his right to carry on business,

despite the fact that several other similarly situated persons have

been allowed to continue their establishments on the same land.

The selective action of the respondents in targeting only the

petitioner out of numerous occupants clearly establishes

discrimination and hostile treatment. In view of the aforesaid

submissions, learned counsel submits that the impugned order

dated 10.03.2026 as well as the consequential notice dated

08.04.2026 deserve to be quashed, 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

alleged encroachment. It is also 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. Along with the said proceedings, the petitioner has

also filed an application seeking grant of interim stay.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner has

already approached the competent appellate authority and the

application for stay is pending consideration, the ends of justice

would be served if the said application is decided expeditiously. At

the same time, it would not be appropriate to permit coercive

action against the petitioner while such application remains

undecided.

7. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter,

particularly the fact that the petitioner has approached the

concerned SDO against the order dated 10.03.2026 and has also

filed an application for grant of stay, however, till date the

concerned SDO has not passed any order, 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 is passed on the application for stay by the concerned SDO.

8. Learned State counsel is directed to forthwith inform the

concerned authority about passing of this order.

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present

petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

                                            (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Shayna                                                 Judge