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 with directions: petitioner to approach the authority concerned for redressal of grievances; the authority concerned 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, given the State's objection that an alternative remedy is available against the Tahsildar's order for removal of the encroachment. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the petitions without deciding the maintainability objection, directing the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for redressal of grievances, and directing that authority to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders redressing the grievances in accordance with law within some expeditious time.

Ratio / Principle

Till the decision of the petitioner's case by the concerned first authority, the order of status quo dated 10.1.2022 passed by this Court in WPC No.95 of 2022 shall continue.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Single Bench, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.), by common order dated 15/04/2025, disposed of two connected writ petitions — WPC No. 95 of 2022 and WPC No. 954 of 2023 — filed by Chandrawati against the State of Chhattisgarh, the Collector, the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer Khadgawan and Gram Panchayat Podi. The petitions arose against an order passed by the Tahsildar for removal of encroachment. The State objected to maintainability, pointing to an alternative remedy before the concerned Collector, and thereafter the Commissioner and the State Government under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular; the petitioner contended that her forefathers had been granted patta/lease over the property and that she was not an encroacher. The Court did not decide these contentions on merits: it directed the petitioner to approach the authority concerned, which was in turn directed to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within some expeditious time, and ordered that the status quo order dated 10.1.2022 passed in WPC No. 95 of 2022 shall 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