[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Asha Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

2026:CGHC:9962-DB
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPPIL No. 25 of 2023

1. Smt. Asha Dubey W/o Shri Sanjay Dubey Aged About 40 Years

President Jay Vihan Sahakari Samiti, Dharsiva, R/o House No.

395, Ward No. 11, Sai Sadan Colony, Dharsiva, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Gayatri Nayak W/o Shri Dinesh Nayak Aged About 53 Years

Secretary, Jay Vihan Sahakari Samiti, Dharsiva, R/o House No.

247, Ward No. 11, Sai Sadan Colony, Dharsiva, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

3. Smt. Dhaneshwari Verma W/o Late Netram Aged About 46 Years

Member, Jay Vihan Sahakari Samiti, Dharsiva, R/o House No.

177, Ward No. 11, Sai Sadan Colony, Dharsiva, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Shashikala Nayak W/o Shri Kamal Narayan Aged About 47

Years Member, Jay Vihan Sahakari Samiti, Dharsiva, R/o Ward

No. 11, Sai Sadan Colony, Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Sandhya Pandey W/o Shri Rajesh Pandey Aged About 57

Years Member, Jay Vihan Sahakari Samiti, Dharsiva, R/o House
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.02.27
10:16:10
+0530
2

No. 257, Ward No. 11, Sai Sadan Colony, Dharsiva, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh

6. R. K. Pandey S/o Late Shivnath Prasad Pandey Aged About 63

Years President, Brahman Samaj Dharsiva, R/o House No. 257,

Ward No. 11, Sai Sadan Colony, Dharsiva, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of

General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal

Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. The Tahsildar Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

6. The Incharge Police Station Dharsiva Raipur, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

7. Gram Pranchayat Dharsiva Through Sarpanch Gram Panchayat

Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

8. Mulim Jamat Through Sadar/ Mutwalli, Haji Abdul Jaleel Khan S/o

Late Akhtiyar Khan, Muslim Community Dharsiva, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General.

For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

26.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel for the

petitioners. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate

General, appearing for the State and Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned

counsel, appearing for respondent No. 8.

2. The present writ petition styled as 'Public Interest Litigation' has

been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

call the entire records pertaining to lands bearing

Khasra Nos. 249/1 & 249/2 as well as Khasra Nos. 26

& 27.

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direct the respondent authorities not to allot the

government lands to Muslim Community meanwhile

the Hindus are celebrating/organizing the festivals and

the childrens are using as playgrounds and the land is

Go-char land where animals are also grazing.

(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direct the respondents to remove the fencing wire as

well as newly constructed main gate from the

government land bearing Khasra Nos. 249/1 & 249/2.

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

secure the right of worship of Hindu peoples

meanwhile there is no other land nearby available for

celebrating Hindu festivals.

(v) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

grant any other relief which may deem fit in the facts

and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present Public

Interest Litigation has been instituted challenging the alleged illegal

encroachment and construction of a boundary wall by way of fencing

over Government lands bearing Khasra Nos. 249/1 and 249/2. It is

contended that the said lands are recorded as Government lands and

are open in nature. According to the petitioners, the respondents have

attempted to convert the said lands for the purpose of a Kabristan by

erecting fencing and raising construction without any lawful authority. It

is further submitted that the lands are situated in front of Sai Sadan

Colony and that the residents of the colony and nearby villagers are

adversely affected by the proposed establishment of a Kabristan at the

said location. The lands, it is stated, have been used for a considerable

period for organizing and celebrating Hindu religious and cultural

programmes such as Durga Festival, Holi, Krishna Janmashtami,

Navadha Ramayan, Dussehra, and Bhagwan Katha, and are also used

as a playground by children of the locality.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that

approximately one year prior, the Hon'ble Chief Minister visited Village

Dharsiva and announced construction of a Kurmi Bhawan on the said

Government land. It is alleged that subsequent thereto, members of the

Muslim community initiated attempts to encroach upon the lands in

question. It is submitted that the Gram Panchayat had earlier allotted

three decimals of land, separate from Khasra Nos. 249/1 and 249/2, for

the purpose of Kabristan; however, the same has not been utilized to

date. It is also stated that the Tahsildar has affixed a notice board

declaring the land to be Government land. The petitioners allege that

the construction of fencing was undertaken with the assistance of the

Mutwalli (respondent No. 8) and that despite several representations

made by the villagers to the competent revenue authorities seeking

removal of the alleged encroachment, no effective action was taken. It

is also alleged that the villagers were threatened with adverse

consequences when they approached the authorities.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that upon

representations made by them, the Tahsildar took cognizance of the

matter and granted a stay on construction of the boundary wall by

respondent No. 8 on 26.04.2022. Thereafter, applications were moved

before the Collector and the Tahsildar seeking allotment of Khasra No.

249/1, admeasuring 1.585 hectares, for Kabristan purposes. The

petitioners filed detailed objections to the said application. It is

contended that despite the pendency of objections and subsistence of

stay orders, Respondent No. 8 proceeded to construct a main gate on

the Government land, whereupon the Tahsildar again granted a stay

order dated 15.02.2023. The petitioners also submitted an application

seeking that Khasra Nos. 249/1 and 249/2 not be allotted for Kabristan

purposes. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 8 subsequently

sought allotment of additional Government lands bearing Khasra Nos.

26 and 27, admeasuring 0.607 hectares, for the purpose of Jayaratgah,

in respect of which proceedings were initiated and a public notice

(Istahar) was issued by the Tahsildar, Dharsiva.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the Muslim

community has already been allotted approximately 2.5 acres of land for

Kabristan purposes situated at Bilaspur Road near the old Police

Station, Dharsiva, and that the said land is presently being used with a

boundary wall already constructed thereon. Despite availability and use

of the said land, further allotment of the present Government lands is

being sought. It is contended that Khasra No. 249/2 has never been

used as a Kabristan and has remained an open land where members of

the Hindu community have been celebrating religious and cultural

programmes for a considerable period without interference. It is also

submitted that on the basis of a demarcation application moved before

the Tahsildar, fencing was erected over Khasra No. 249/2. According to

the petitioners, such construction adversely affects the rights of local

residents to use the land for religious, cultural, community, and

recreational purposes, and also impacts its use as grazing land

(Gochar/grassland).

7. It is further submitted that the Government land in question has

long been used for public purposes including religious festivals,

children's playground, and grazing of animals, and that conversion of

the same for Kabristan purposes would alter its nature and adversely

affect established public use. The erection of fencing and boundary

structures is stated to have obstructed the right of way and caused

inconvenience in organizing public and religious functions. The

petitioners assert that Khasra Nos. 249/1 and 249/2 are the only open

lands available in the vicinity for such community purposes and that no

suitable alternative land exists. It is further submitted that the three

decimals earlier allotted for Kabristan are situated in a location

surrounded by public offices and residential houses, rendering the same

unsuitable, and that in view of the existing 2.5 acres already allotted and

in use, further allotment of the disputed lands is unwarranted. On these

premises, appropriate directions are sought to restrain the respondents

from encroaching upon or altering the nature of the said Government

lands.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present petition

alleges inaction on the part of the authorities in respect of the alleged

encroachment over Government lands bearing Khasra Nos. 249/1 and

249/2 at Village Dharsiwa, District Raipur. It is acknowledged that

allegations were made against respondent No. 8 and certain members

of the Muslim community regarding erection of fencing and construction

of a gate. It was also submitted before this Court that the lands are

recorded as grazing lands and that certain applications were pending

before the Tahsildar regarding preservation of the nature of the lands.

9. Learned State counsel further submits that this Court, taking note

of the submissions and observing that no allotment order had been

issued in favour of any individual or group, directed the concerned

Tahsildar to conduct an inspection within 24 hours to ascertain whether

any fencing or gate had been erected over Khasra Nos. 249/1 and

249/2. The Court further directed that if any such structure was found,

the same be removed forthwith with police assistance to ensure that no

person or group takes over Government land by force and that

communal harmony is maintained. Thereafter, on 02.05.2023, it was

informed that the alleged encroachment had been removed, and this

Court directed filing of an affidavit evidencing compliance.

10. Learned State counsel submits that in compliance with the

directions of this Court, the Collector, Raipur, filed a personal affidavit

dated 08.05.2023 stating that Khasra No. 249/1 admeasuring 1.585

hectares and Khasra No. 249/2 admeasuring 0.202 hectares are

Government lands. Pursuant to the order dated 22.03.2023, an

inspection was conducted on 24.03.2023 by the Tahsildar, Dharsiwa,

along with the Revenue Inspector, Halka Patwari No. 18, Town

Inspector of Police Station Dharsiwa, Village Kotwar, and other officials.

During inspection, it was found that Khasra No. 249/1 was free from

encroachment. However, in respect of Khasra No. 249/2, fencing wire

and an iron gate had been erected and the land was found in

possession of Muslim Samaj (Jama Masjid Dharsiwa). A panchnama

was prepared on 24.03.2023 recording these facts. Thereafter, on

25.03.2023, the said fencing wire and iron gate were removed by the

authorities in the presence of concerned officials and villagers, and a

separate panchnama was prepared evidencing removal of the

encroachment.

11. Learned State counsel would submit that the panchnama dated

25.03.2023 clearly establishes that the fencing wire and iron gate have

been removed and that, as on date, there is no encroachment by any

individual or community over Government lands bearing Khasra Nos.

249/1 and 249/2. It is contended that the State authorities have acted

promptly and in strict compliance with the directions issued by this

Court, ensuring removal of the alleged encroachment and maintenance

of law and order. At present, the lands in question stand free from

encroachment.

12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 submits that the

present petition is not a bona fide Public Interest Litigation and that the

petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. It is

contended that the petitioners and their relatives own adjoining lands

and have a private interest in keeping the disputed lands open so as to

facilitate access to their properties. It is further submitted that Khasra

No. 249/2 is already reserved for Kabristan/graveyard purposes and

that an application in respect of Khasra No. 249/1 is pending

consideration before the competent authority.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 8 further submits that

documents obtained under the Right to Information Act from the Gram

Panchayat Office, forwarded through covering memo dated 25.02.2016,

indicate that communal festivals are celebrated at a separate

designated place and not on the disputed lands. It is thus contended

that the allegations regarding long-standing exclusive use of the subject

lands for religious and cultural programmes are factually incorrect.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

pleadings and documents appended thereto.

15. It is not in dispute that Khasra Nos. 249/1 and 249/2 are

Government lands. It is also an admitted position, as borne out from the

affidavit filed by the Collector and the panchnamas placed on record,

that any fencing wire and iron gate erected over Khasra No. 249/2 have

already been removed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court

and that, as on date, the lands stand free from encroachment.

16. In view of the compliance reported by the State authorities, no

further direction is required at this stage insofar as removal of the

alleged encroachment is concerned. The dispute now essentially

pertains to the proposed allotment or change of use of the lands in

question, which is a matter pending consideration before the competent

revenue authorities.

17. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the

present Public Interest Litigation with a direction to the competent

authority, namely the Collector/Tahsildar concerned, to consider and

decide all pending applications relating to Khasra Nos. 249/1 and 249/2

strictly in accordance with law. The authority shall afford an opportunity

of hearing to all necessary and affected parties, including the petitioners

and respondent No. 8, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order

uninfluenced by any observations made in the present petition. The

aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

18. With the above observations and directions, the present Public

Interest Litigation stands disposed off. No order as to costs.

                             Sd/-                                  Sd/-
                  (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                    (Ramesh Sinha)
                            Judge                              Chief Justice




Brijmohan