Chhattisgarh High Court
WP227/1233/2026 of PUSHPARANI SHEEL Vs Narayan sheel on 22 September 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1233 of 2026 Pushparani Sheel W/o Shankar Sheel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village P.V. 17, Haker Tehsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus Narayan Sheel S/o Shrnath Sheel R/o Village P.V. 17, Haker,
CGHC010353032026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 1233 of 2026
Pushparani Sheel W/o Shankar Sheel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village P.V.
17, Haker Tehsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
Narayan Sheel S/o Shrnath Sheel R/o Village P.V. 17, Haker, Tehsil Pakhanjur District North Bastar Kanker C.G.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
23/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The default pointed out by the Registry is waived.
2. Heard.
3. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur and the notices dated 27.11.2025 and 22.12.2025 issued by the
Tehsildar, Pakhanjur under Section 248(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the order has been passed against the petitioner on 12.01.2010, an order had already been passed against the petitioner by the Additional Commissioner, North Bastar Kanker on 29.04.2009 and by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur on 12.01.2010 for removal of the petitioner from the encroached land. However, no proceedings were drawn since then and presently proceedings under Section 248(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code have again been initiated by the Tehsildar, Pakhanjur, whereas the petitioner has been in possession of the subject land for more than 30 years. Initiation of proceedings after such a long time itself is erroneous. Therefore, the proceedings may be quashed and the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur may be set aside.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
6. From perusal of the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, it transpires that the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, North Bastar Kanker has been dismissed, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove her encroachment from the subject land. Since the order of removal of encroachment of the petitioner from the subject land had already been passed in the year 2009 and the same was affirmed by the Commissioner in the year 2010, merely because the petitioner has continued to remain in possession of the subject land, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any right to continue in possession of the subject land. Presently, if the Tehsildar has issued proceedings for removal of the encroachment, and since the order of removal of encroachment of the petitioner had already been passed in the year 2009 itself, no case appears to be made out in favour of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 as well as the subsequent show cause notices dated 27.11.2025 and 22.12.2025.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok