1

CGHC010245002020 2026:CGHC:35783

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 2728 of 2020

Order Reserved on: 21.7.2026

Order Delivered on: 13.8.2026

•Rajesh Raj Gupta S/o Shri Awadh Bihari Gupta Aged About 42

Years Occupation Shop Keeper, R/o Village And Post Sonhat,

Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And

Raural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.The Collector District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

3.The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Sonhat, District Koriya

Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

2

4.The Tahsildar Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District :

Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

5.Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, Tahsil

Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 1586 of 2026

•Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o. Late Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 48

Years R/o.- Village Sonhat, Tehsil And District Koriya

Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat And Rural

Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava

Raipur (C.G.).

2.Collector Koriya, District- Koriya (C.G.).

3.Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sonhat, District- Koriya (C.G.).

4.Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, District-

Koriya (C.G.).

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 1560 of 2026

•Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Danushdhari Prasad Sahu Aged About

46 Years R/o Village- Kashra Post- Baikunthpur Tehsil Patna

District- Koriya Chhattisgarh.

3

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Panchayat And Rural

Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava

Raipur (C.G.).

2.Collector Koriya District- Koriya (C.G.).

3.Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sonhat District- Koriya (C.G.).

4.Tehsildar Tehsil - Sonhat District- Koriya (C.G.).

5.Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sonhat District- Koriya

(C.G.).

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 2730 of 2020

•Smt. Shobha Gupta W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta Aged About 50

Years R/o Village And Post Sonhat, Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya

Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And

Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.The Collector District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

3.The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Sonhat, District Koriya

Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

4

4.The Tahsildar Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District :

Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

5.Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, Tahsil

Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 2740 of 2020

•Rajkumar Modi S/o Late Ramchandra Modi, Aged About 53 Years

Occupation Business, R/o Village And Post Sonhat, House No.

43, Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1.State Of Chhattisgarh Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, Tahsil Sonhat,

District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.The Collector, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

3.The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev), Sonhat, District Koriya

Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

4.The Tahsildar, Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District :

Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

5.Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, Tahsil

Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

5

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 1797 of 2021

•Dayashankar Sahu S/o Somnath Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o

Village Sonhat, District-Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya

(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1.State Of Chhattisgarh Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, District Korba

Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.Collector Koriya, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba,

Chhattisgarh.

3.Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Sonhat, District, Korba

Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

4.Tahsildar Sonhat, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba,

Chhattisgarh.

5.Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, District Korba

Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate and

Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)/State :Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel

Lawyer.

For Respondent No. 5:Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate and Mr.

Mukund Chaturvedi, Advocate.

6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Order

1.Since common question of facts and law is involved in these

cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this

common order.

2.The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions.

Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer

made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and

substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The

reliefs prayed in WPC No. 2728/2020 (Rajesh Raj Gupta vs.

State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) are quoted hereinbelow in order

to consider these cases and to decide the same.

“10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to

issue a writ of mandamus / prohibition or of like nature to

quash the impügned notice dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure

P-1) with further direction to the respondents not to take

any coercive steps of ejectment and vacating the subject

premises.

10.2. That a command / direction may kindly be issued to

the respondent authorities not to recover the penal rent

and arrears of the rent mentioned in notices.

10.3. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may

also be awarded alongwith the cost of the petition.”

3.Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a resident of

Sonhat, District Koriya, and has been in peaceful, continuous,

7

and uninterrupted possession of the disputed land and shop for

several decades. The land bearing Survey Nos. 239 and 527

originally belonged to the erstwhile Ruling Chief (Raja) of the

former Koriya State, namely Raja Bhupendra Narayan Singh, and

the petitioner came into occupation thereof with the permission of

the said Ruling Chief. The shop situated over the said land has

been in existence for a long time and, since the year 2006, the

petitioner has been carrying on his general store business from

Shop No. 9. In the year 2008, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad

Panchayat, Sonhat, falsely represented that the said shop formed

part of the property of the Janpad Panchayat and insisted that the

occupants execute rent agreements for continued occupation.

Acting upon such representation and under compelling

circumstances, the petitioner executed a rent agreement dated

23.06.2008, which required him to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-

as earnest money. Thereafter, in terms of the said agreement, the

petitioner started paying rent to the Janpad Panchayat, although

neither the land nor the shop in question ever vested in or

belonged to the Janpad Panchayat, the same being the exclusive

property of the erstwhile Raja of Koriya. Despite regular payment

of rent by the petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad

Panchayat, Sonhat, began threatening the petitioner with eviction

and repeatedly issued notices demanding alleged arrears of rent

and penal rent, even though no arrears were legally due and the

demands were contrary to the terms and conditions of the rent

8

agreement. Owing to such coercive action, the petitioner was

compelled to deposit the amounts demanded from time to time

solely to avoid forcible dispossession, although such payments

were made under protest and without admitting any liability. The

continuous issuance of illegal notices and arbitrary demands

clearly demonstrates the harassment meted out to the petitioner

without any authority of law. It is submitted that the Chief

Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, has no jurisdiction

or legal authority either to treat the land and shop belonging to

the erstwhile Ruling Chief as the property of the Janpad

Panchayat, to compel execution of a rent agreement, or to levy

and recover rent or penal rent from the petitioner. Nevertheless,

the respondents once again issued the impugned notice dated

12.10.2020 in respect of both the shops occupied by the

petitioner, demanding payment of arbitrary penal rent and alleged

arrears and calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why

the allotment of the shops should not be cancelled, without

affording him any reasonable opportunity of hearing and in

complete violation of the principles of natural justice.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principal

grievance of the petitioner is the arbitrary demand of exorbitant

penal rent coupled with the threat of eviction from Shop No. 9,

which the petitioner has been lawfully occupying. It is contended

that the Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, has no lawful title over the

land bearing Survey Nos. 239 and 527, as the revenue records,

9

including the B-1 and Khasra entries, continue to record the name

of the erstwhile Ruler of Koriya State, Raja Bhupendra Narayan

Singh. In the absence of any legally vested title, the rent

agreement executed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad

Panchayat, is without jurisdiction and unenforceable in law, as no

person can confer a better title than he himself possesses. It is

further submitted that the respondents have failed to produce any

notification or vesting order under the provisions of the Madhya

Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, establishing

that the subject land ever vested in the State or the Janpad

Panchayat. On the contrary, respondent No. 5 has admitted in

paragraph 12 of its return that communications dated 14.05.2020

and 26.08.2020 were addressed to the District Collector and the

Sub-Divisional Officer seeking mutation of the land in favour of

the Janpad Panchayat, which clearly demonstrates that the land

has not yet vested in the Janpad Panchayat. It is, therefore,

contended that, in the absence of lawful ownership, the

respondents cannot invoke the provisions of the Chhattisgarh

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act or

initiate summary eviction proceedings. Learned counsel would

further submit that the impugned notice dated 12.10.2020

demanding penal rent and threatening cancellation of the

petitioner's allotment has been issued arbitrarily, without affording

any effective opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the

principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of

10

India. It is also submitted that the respondents cannot claim

ownership over the land merely because structures have been

raised thereon, nor can they recover penal rent without any legal

authority or adjudication. Accordingly, it is prayed that the

impugned notice/order being wholly without jurisdiction and

contrary to law deserves to be quashed and the writ petition be

allowed.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that, upon a

plain reading of the writ petition, it is evident that the principal

grievance of the petitioner is directed against the action of

respondent No. 5, namely, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad

Panchayat, Sonhat, who has issued the impugned notice dated

12.10.2020. It is contended that the petitioner has neither

challenged any order passed by the answering respondents nor

made any specific allegation or attributed any independent cause

of action against the State authorities. Learned counsel would

further submit that respondent No. 5 has already filed a detailed

return traversing the allegations made in the writ petition, and the

stand of the answering respondents is substantially the same as

that taken by respondent No. 5. Accordingly, the State adopts and

relies upon the pleadings and submissions contained in the return

filed by respondent No. 5 and seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to

treat the same as forming part of its defence in the present

proceedings. It is further submitted that, in view of the

comprehensive reply already filed by respondent No. 5, the

11

answering respondents do not propose to file a separate detailed

para-wise return at this stage. However, they respectfully reserve

their right to file an independent and detailed reply, if so directed

by this Hon'ble Court or if the circumstances of the case so

warrant for the proper adjudication of the dispute. Without

prejudice to the aforesaid, learned counsel specifically denies and

disputes all the allegations and averments made against the

answering respondents in the writ petition and prays that the

petition, being devoid of any cause of action against the State,

deserves to be dismissed.

6.Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 would submit that both the

writ petitions arise out of the recovery notices dated 21.01.2026

issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat,

for recovery of outstanding rent in respect of shops constructed

from public funds and, since both matters involve identical

questions of fact and law, they deserve to be decided together. It

is submitted that the petitioners are occupants of Shop Nos. 7

and 3, respectively, under allotment agreements executed in the

years 2006 and have remained chronic defaulters in payment of

rent despite repeated demand notices issued from time to time,

compelling the respondent to issue the impugned recovery

notices. Learned counsel would further submit that the land

comprising Khasra Nos. 527 and 528 has remained under the

possession, management, and control of the Government and the

Janpad Panchayat for several decades, where various public

12

offices and institutions have been established. It is contended that

the petitioners, having voluntarily accepted the allotment

agreements and continued in possession as tenants, are

estopped from disputing the title of the Janpad Panchayat in view

of Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P.

v. Yakinuddin. It is further submitted that the Chief Executive

Officer is duly empowered under the provisions of the

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the

Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat (Leasing

of Fees Collection) Rules, 1995, to manage Panchayat properties

and recover outstanding dues as arrears of land revenue. The

plea of limitation raised by the petitioners is also misconceived,

as the liability to pay rent is continuous and recurring.

Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned recovery notices

are legal and valid, the writ petitions being devoid of merit

deserve to be dismissed, and the interim orders granted in favour

of the petitioners are liable to be vacated.

7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused

the the material available on record, this Court proceeds to

examine the controversy involved in the present petition.

8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of

Tamil Nadu and others vs. P.R. Jaganathan and others, 2025

SCC Online SC 2496, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed

as under:-

13

“21. Once such an agreement is arrived at, it becomes

a concluded contract under Section 3 of the Indian

Contract Act, 1872. The rights and liabilities of the

parties would only be governed by the terms of the

contract. Hence, a contract voluntarily entered into

between the parties, shall not be disturbed by taking

recourse to the statutory provisions, which are sought

to be excluded by such contract. A party to a contract

cannot be permitted to have recourse to two different

modes, especially after having accepted the

compensation under the contract without any demur or

protest. It is not open to either of the parties to resile

from the terms of the agreement arrived at. We may

note that the issues of rent and compensation were

raised even earlier. These issues were put to an end

through the agreement. Therefore, the private

respondents are totally estopped from seeking any

relief beyond the terms of the contract.

23. It is not as if the agreement has been entered into

by force or deceit. There is no suppression of fact or

any element of fraud. Therefore, it can be seen that the

private respondents were initially inclined to accept the

amount determined by way of a final agreement. It is

only thereafter, wisdom dawned upon them to seek

interest. Thus, it is a clear case of approbation and

14

reprobation. The said doctrine of approbate and

reprobate has been enunciated by this Court in the

case of Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC

25:

“Approbate and reprobate:

26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots

law. They would only mean that no party can be

allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and

thus one cannot blow hot and cold. The principle

behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the

concept of approbate and reprobate. Once

again, it is a principle of equity coming under the

contours of common law. Therefore, he who

knows that if he objects to an instrument, he will

not get the benefit he wants cannot be allowed

to do so while enjoying the fruits. One cannot

take advantage of one part while rejecting the

rest. A person cannot be allowed to have the

benefit of an instrument while questioning the

same. Such a party either has to affirm or

disaffirm the transaction. This principle has to be

applied with more vigour as a common law

principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one

part fully and on near completion of the said

enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part.

15

An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle.

It is also a species of estoppel dealing with the

conduct of a party. We have already dealt with

the provisions of the Contract Act concerning the

conduct of a party, and his presumption of

knowledge while confirming an offer through his

acceptance unconditionally.”

(emphasis supplied)

9.It appears from the record that the petitioner voluntarily entered

into a rent agreement with the Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat,

whereby he expressly agreed to occupy the shop on payment of

rent and further agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as

security. Being a signatory to the said agreement, the petitioner is

bound by its terms and conditions and cannot be permitted to

approbate and reprobate by taking a stand contrary to the

agreement. The principal defence raised by the petitioner is that

the land continues to stand recorded in the revenue records in the

name of the erstwhile Ruler (Raja) of the former Koriya State and,

therefore, the Janpad Panchayat had no authority to execute the

agreement or demand rent. However, it is significant to note that

although the petitioner seeks to derive benefit from the alleged

title of the erstwhile Ruler, he has neither impleaded the erstwhile

Ruler or his legal representatives as parties to the present

proceedings nor has any material been placed on record to

demonstrate that the erstwhile Ruler has ever asserted ownership

16

over the land or objected to the possession and use of the

property by the State or the Janpad Panchayat. On the contrary, it

is evident that not only the Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, but

several Government offices and public institutions have been

functioning on the said land for decades without any objection

from the erstwhile Ruler or any person claiming through him. In

such circumstances, the plea raised by the petitioner appears to

be an afterthought, intended only to avoid payment of rent under

the agreement voluntarily executed by him. Unless the said

agreement is declared void or unenforceable by a competent

court of law, the petitioner cannot escape his contractual

obligations by disputing the authority of the Janpad Panchayat. It

is also pertinent to note that the petitioner not only executed the

agreement but also deposited the security amount and paid rent

in terms thereof, thereby unequivocally accepting the relationship

created under the agreement. Having accepted the benefits

flowing from the agreement, the petitioner is estopped from

disputing its validity merely on the ground that the land continues

to be recorded in the name of the erstwhile Ruler. Furthermore,

the petitioner has not approached this Court with complete

candour, as he has failed to disclose that he had accepted the

liability to pay rent in terms of the agreement and had, in fact,

deposited the rent in instalments.

10.A perusal of the material available on record further reveals that

the competent authorities of the Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, had

17

addressed communications to the Collector, Koriya, seeking

mutation of the name of the Janpad Panchayat in the revenue

records. The said communications also disclose that, since

02.10.1958, the Development Block Office has been functioning

on the subject land and that several Government establishments

and public institutions, including the Janpad Panchayat Office,

Community Health Centre, Block Education Office, Office of the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Kasturba

Gandhi Girls' Residential School, Bihan Gallery, Conference Hall,

Community Hall, Veterinary Hospital, shops constructed by the

Janpad Panchayat, Indira Awas Colony, Government residential

quarters, and other public establishments, have been situated

and functioning thereon for more than six decades. These facts

remain substantially undisputed. Therefore, after the lapse of

more than sixty years, the contention raised by the petitioner that

the land belongs to the erstwhile Ruler and that the Janpad

Panchayat had no authority to issue the impugned notice does

not appear to be legally tenable. Rather, it appears that the

petitioner has questioned the authority of the Janpad Panchayat

solely to evade payment of rent. On the face of the record, the

impugned notice issued by the Janpad Panchayat cannot be said

to be arbitrary, illegal, or without authority of law.

11.Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. The

respondent authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with

the impugned notices and take consequential action permissible

18

under law. In the event the petitioners fail or refuse to pay the

outstanding rent and other dues as demanded in the impugned

notices, it shall be open to the Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, to

initiate appropriate proceedings, including eviction of the

petitioners from the shops in question, strictly in accordance with

the procedure established by law. It is made clear that any such

action shall be taken only after complying with the applicable

statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Raghu Jat