Chandrawati Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chandrawati Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions disposed of. Petitioner directed to approach the authority concerned for redressal of grievances; that authority directed to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within some expeditious time; the status quo order dated 10.1.2022 in WPC No. 95 of 2022 to continue till decision by the concerned first authority.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions are maintainable, the State contending that an alternative remedy lies under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular (approach to the Collector, thereafter the Commissioner and the State Government) against the Tahsildar's order for removal of encroachment. +1 more

Court's answer

Rather than adjudicating the encroachment claim in the writ petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for redressal of her grievances.

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned was directed to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders redressing the petitioner's grievances in accordance with law within some expeditious time.

Key takeaways

The status quo order dated 10.1.2022 passed by this Court in WPC No. 95 of 2022 shall continue till the decision of the petitioner's case by the concerned first authority.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad), order dated 15/04/2025, disposed of two writ petitions — WPC No. 95 of 2022 and WPC No. 954 of 2023 — filed by Chandrawati against the State of Chhattisgarh and revenue authorities (Collector, SDO, Tahsildar, Gram Panchayat Podi) in a matter involving an order of the Tahsildar for removal of encroachment. The State submitted that the petitions were not maintainable since an alternative remedy lay before the Collector, and thereafter the Commissioner and the State Government, under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular; the petitioner maintained that her forefathers had been granted patta/lease over the property and that she was not an encroacher. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the authority concerned, and directed that authority to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within some expeditious time. The status quo order dated 10.1.2022 passed in WPC No. 95 of 2022 was ordered to continue till decision of the petitioner's case by the concerned first authority.

1

Digitally signedby GOPALSINGHDate:2025.05.2318:17:48 +0530

2025:CGHC:17291

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 95 of 2022

1 - Chandrawati D/o Late Mangal Ahir Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Podi, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Collector Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Tahsildar Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

4 - Gram Panchayat Podi Through The Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat, Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 954 of 2023

1 - Chandrawati D/o Mangal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Jilda, Tahsil Khadgawa, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

--- Petitioner(s)

Versus

2

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Collector District Korea, Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Khadgawan, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

4 - The Tahsildar Village Khadgawan, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Government Advocate and Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

15/04/2025

1. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the present petitions are not maintainable. She further submits that against the order passed by the Tahsildar for removal of the encroachment, the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under the law.

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the forefathers of the petitioner have been granted patta/lease in respect of the property in question and thus the petitioner is not an encroacher.

3. Learned counsel for the State raising objection further

3

submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy under the law to approach before the concerned Collector and thereafter to approach before the Commissioner as well as the State Government under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to approach before the authority concerned raising grievances of the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of both the cases, the petitioner is directed to approach before the authority concerned for redressal of grievances of the petitioner and in turn the authority concerned is directed to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders redressing the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with law within some expeditious time.

6. Since there is an order of status quo dated 10.1.2022 passed by this Court in WPC No.95 of 2022, therefore, till the decision of the case of the petitioner by the concerned first authority the aforesaid order of status quo shall continue.

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

Gopal Singh