Dilip Gandhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Nov 2025WPC/1134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Justice Parth Prateem Sahu; 04/11/2025; WPC No. 1134 of 2022 — Demolition-of-shop compensation claim (Rs.20 lakhs) held undecidable in writ proceedings absent oral and documentary proof of loss; compensation relief refused, liberty reserved to approach the Civil Court; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No monetary relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. ¶¶34

Dilip Gandhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No monetary relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for demolition of his shop, and whether such a compensation claim can be decided in writ petition proceedings without leading oral and documentary evidence. +1 more

¶¶26

Court's answer

A claim for compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for demolition of the petitioner's shop can only be granted upon proof of the case and the value of loss suffered, by leading oral and documentary evidence in appropriate proceedings.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Such a compensation claim cannot be gone into and decided in the proceedings of a writ petition.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

The relief of compensation as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted.ratio¶¶33
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for his compensation claim.ratio¶¶33
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Single Bench, Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge), Order dated 04/11/2025 in WPC No. 1134 of 2022 (NAFR). Dilip Gandhi sought (i) Rs.20 lakhs compensation from State forest/police authorities for demolition of his shop in which goods were kept/stored for sale, (ii) disciplinary action against the erring officer, and (iii) calling of records from the Court below. During arguments the petitioner pressed only the compensation relief. The Court held that a claim for compensation can be granted only by proving the case and the value of loss suffered by leading oral and documentary evidence in appropriate proceedings, which cannot be gone into and decided in writ proceedings; accordingly the compensation relief could not be granted, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, and the writ petition was disposed of. Proposed intervenors (Rameshwar and Panchram) had not filed their intervention application.

1 / 3

2025:CGHC:53928

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1134 of 2022

¶6

Dilip Gandhi S/o Rameshwar Gandhi, Caste- Ganda, Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Aamgaon, Tahsil-Farasgaon, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest And Climatologically Diversion Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Divisional Forest Officer Keshkal Forest Division, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Range Officer, Badedonger Forest Circle, District-Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The Superintendent Of Police District- Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

5 - The Station House Officer Police Station -Urandabeda, DistrictKondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For proposed Intervenors : Ms. Sejal Makkad, Advocate

¶16

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.07 17:52:09 +0530

Order on Board

2 / 3

04/11/2025

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief(s):-

¶22

“ 10.1 . That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call the records from the Court below.

¶23

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to provide compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs forthwith for demolishing the shop of petitioner.

¶24

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent No.1 to take disciplinary action against the erring officer for demolishing the shop of petitioner.

¶25

10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given. ”

¶26

During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is pressing the relief 10.2 of this writ petition for grant of compensation against demolition of his shop wherein goods were also kept/stored for purpose of sale.

¶27

Mr. Satish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the relief which is prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted as the relief of compensation can be considered only after the evidence is produced by respective parties by both the sides and, therefore, claim of compensation can be decided by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶28

Ms. Sejal Makkad, learned counsel appearing for proposed intervenors

¶29

3 / 3

¶30

submits that she has been consulted by Rameshwar and Panchram to file application for intervention and she has also filed ‘vakalatnama’ yesterday. However, till date, application for intervention has not been filed.

¶31

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶32

As the thrust of the petitioner in this writ petition is mainly for grant of compensation against so called loss suffered by him in demolition of shop run by him, in the opinion of this Court, relief of compensation of Rs.20 lakhs as claimed by the petitioner can only be granted by proving the case and value of loss suffered by him, in an appropriate proceedings by leading oral and documentary evidence in support of claim, which cannot be gone into and decided in the proceedings of writ petition.

¶33

For the foregoing discussions, relief of compensation as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. However, liberty is reserved with petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed off.

¶35

Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶36

Praveen

Dilip Gandhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Gandhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anpurna Women Self Help Group - Belgahana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bulaki Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajaram Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Shriram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Basant Pandal House, Vs State of Chhattisgarh