Dismissed

Munni Bai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2025WPC/332/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief to recover possession of land granted under Rajiv Gandhi Ashray Yojna, 1998, from an encroacher. Court held that efficacious alternative remedies like civil suit or police complaint are available and unwritten remedies were not exhausted, thus petition dismissed at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed at admission stage due to non-exhaustion of alternative remedies.

Munni Bai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

-1-

2025:CGHC:29943

NAFR

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 332 of 2020

¶6

Munni Bai Yadav W/o Shri Santosh Yadav Aged About 45 Years Resident of Ward No. 33, Mamta Tent House Gali, Tikrapara, Yadav Mohalla, Tahsil & District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Raipur Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil & Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - State of Madhya Pradesh Through- The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

¶11

3 - The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The Sub-Divisional officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - The Tahsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Arjun Yadav S/o Late Chhedi Yadav Aged About 44 Years Resident of Tikrapara, Yadav Mohalla, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

-2-

Order on Board

02.07.2025

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶23

“10.i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the pending application dated 02.12.2019 of the petitioner within stipulated time.

¶24

ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to secure the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land granted under the Scheme of Rajiv Gandhi Ashray Yojna, 1998 from the unauthorized encroacher or person.

¶25

iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also, kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶26

iv. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. ”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a lease was granted by the State Government under the Rajiv Gandhi Ashray Yojna, 1998, in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No. 214/1, admeasuring 700 sq. ft., situated at Ward No. 33/36, Mama Bhanja Talab. He submits that respondent No.6 is interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said land, despite the valid lease. He would also submit that a representation has been made before

¶28

the Collector seeking protection of possession. It is further submitted that since the lease has been executed by the State, the respondent authorities are under obligation to safeguard the possession of the petitioner. He would submit that a

¶29

direction may be issued to the concerned Collector to take appropriate steps.

¶30

-3-

¶31

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petition is not maintainable.

¶32

1. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner

¶33

and material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner is seeking relief in the nature of a temporary injunction under the guise of a protective direction, though the lease in favour of the petitioner is not in dispute, it is open to the petitioner to avail of the efficacious alternative remedy available under law either by lodging a complaint with the local police authorities or by instituting a civil suit seeking injunction against respondent No.6. Since such remedies are available and have not been exhausted, this petition is not maintainable.

¶34

1. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Nadim

Munni Bai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Bai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Akanksha Singh Gehalot Vs Antriksh Gehalot

Seikh Aslam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nirmal Chandra Sarkar (Died) Through Lrs Vs The Managing Director, Food Corporation Of India

Chandra Shekhar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Samiksha Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh