[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Padam Sethiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19102
NAFR
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5670 of 2025
1 - Padam Sethiya S/o Late Jankiram Sethiya Aged About 61 Years R/o
Village- Markel, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And
Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan,
Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Distt- Bastar (C.G.)
3 - The Collector Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
5 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil- Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)
6 - Smt. Prabhat Nalin W/o Sadan Nayak R/o Village- Gadbaguda,
Navarangpur (Odisha) ... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate
For State :- Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A.
For Respondent No. 6 :- Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
25.04.2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the
impugned eviction order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the
respondent No.5/Naib Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, as well as the
consequential orders passed by the appellate authorities i.e. the
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated 03.07.2023, the
Commissioner dated 24.01.2025 and the Board of Revenue
dated 30.05.2025, whereby the petitioner has been directed to be
evicted from the land bearing Khasra No. 311.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be in
possession of the subject land for the last 40-50 years.
Proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land
Revenue Code, 1959 were initiated at the instance of respondent
No.6 alleging encroachment by the petitioner. During the course
of proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar, the petitioner could not
remain present on certain dates as he was in judicial custody.
Consequently, the matter proceeded ex parte and an order of
eviction came to be passed. The said order was affirmed in
appeal and revision by the SDO, Commissioner and Board of
Revenue respectively, leading to filing of the present writ petition.
3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order,
or direction quashing the impugned eviction
order dated 03.09.2025 passed by
Respondent No. 5 (Annexure P/1), the order
dated 28.04.2018 passed bythe learned Naib
Tahsildar (Annexure P/2), the order dated
03.07.2023 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Officer (Annexure P/3), the order
dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned
Commissioner (Annexure P/4), and the order
dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned
Board of Revenue (Annexure P/6).
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent
authorities to restore and confirm the
petitioner's peaceful possession over the land
bearing Khasra No. 311, 311, area area 0.40
hectares, situated at Village Markel, P.H. No.
24, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G).
10.3 That, any other relief in favour of the
petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire
proceedings suffer from gross violation of principles of natural
justice. It is contended that the petitioner was in judicial custody
during the relevant period and, therefore, could not appear before
the Naib Tahsildar to defend his case or cross-examine the
witnesses. It is further submitted that this fact was specifically
raised before the appellate authorities as well as the Board of
Revenue, supported by the order passed in MCRC No.
4036/2018, yet the same has not been considered by any of the
authorities. It is argued that once a plausible and sufficient cause
for non-appearance was brought to the notice of the authorities,
the matter ought to have been reconsidered on merits after
affording proper opportunity of hearing. Non-consideration of
such a vital ground vitiates the entire proceedings. Learned
counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned orders are liable to
be set aside and the matter deserves to be remitted back to the
competent authority for fresh consideration.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as counsel appearing
for the private respondent submit that the petitioner had initially
appeared before the Naib Tahsildar and had filed his reply. It is
contended that thereafter he failed to appear at the stage of final
hearing and, therefore, the order has rightly been passed. It is
further submitted that the orders passed by the Naib Tahsildar
have been affirmed by three successive revenue authorities and
no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and
submits that the action has been taken on the basis of
encroachment over Government land and in accordance with the
provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is,
however, fairly submitted that proper demarcation of the land can
be undertaken and the petitioner's claim can be examined by the
competent revenue authority in accordance with law.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner had
specifically raised a ground before the appellate authorities as
well as before the Board of Revenue that he remained in judicial
custody during the relevant period and, therefore, could not
effectively participate in the proceedings before the Naib
Tahsildar. It further appears that the said contention finds support
from the order passed in MCRC proceedings granting bail to the
petitioner. However, from the perusal of the orders passed by the
SDO, Commissioner and Board of Revenue, it is evident that this
specific ground has not been considered in its proper perspective.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, when a party raises a
plausible ground explaining his non-appearance, particularly on
account of judicial custody, the same deserves due consideration,
as it goes to the root of compliance of principles of natural justice.
The failure of the authorities to consider such an important aspect
has resulted in denial of adequate opportunity to the petitioner to
defend his case. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the matter requires reconsideration by the competent
authority after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
as well as other concerned parties.
10.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
11.The impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Naib
Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, as well as the orders passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated 03.07.2023, the Commissioner
dated 24.01.2025 and the Board of Revenue dated 30.05.2025
are hereby set aside.
12.The matter is remitted back to the concerned
Tahsildar/competent authority to decide the case afresh. The
concerned Tahsildar shall afford due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner as well as to the private respondent and shall permit the
parties to place all relevant documents in support of their
respective claims. Thereafter, the Tahsildar shall pass a reasoned
and speaking order in accordance with law. The petitioner is
directed to appear before the concerned Tahsildar on 15.06.2026
without awaiting any further notice.
13.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case and the authority shall decide the matter
independently in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall
be completed expeditiously.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha
