Dismissed¶34

Dashrath Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2026WPC/2180/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 2180 of 2020; Dashrath Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & others; maintainability of a second writ petition filed during pendency of an earlier petition (WP (C) No. 1894/2020) raising similar grounds; challenge to construction of new panchayat building by Gram Panchayat Sale Khurd without notice; land ownership enquiry; interim order stalling SDO(R) proceedings; petition dismissed; single bench of Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; decided 14/07/2026.

What did the court decide?

On consideration of the facts and submissions, the Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed it. ¶31

Dashrath Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

CGHC010201852020

2026:CGHC:29765

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2180 of 2020

¶7

1 - Dashrath Yadav S/o Samaru Yadav Aged About 74 Years R/o House No. 167, Sale Khurd, Post Rounda, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sale Khurd, Post Rounda, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Sale Khurd, Post Rounda, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate

¶17

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

ORDER ON BOARD

¶19

14/07/2026

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶21

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the whole action of Respondents No. 4 & 5 which is making construction of new panchayat building without issuing any notice to the petitioners.

¶23

10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct proper enquiry over the ownership of the said land after due opportunity of hearing of the petitioners and stop the construction of the New Panchayat Building of Village Salhe Khurd.

¶24

10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue over the said land possession and thrashing field.

¶25

10.4 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the respective respondents jointly submit that the petitioner Horilal Jangel has earlier filed Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 1894/2020 raising similar grounds which was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2020. They submit that from the date as mentioned in the writ petition, it is apparent that during pendency of the first writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 1894/2020, this second petition is filed and therefore, this petition is not maintainable. In support of their contention, they placed reliance upon the order dated 04.09.2020 filed along with the reply of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 as ANNEXURE R – 4&5/1.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears that the grievance of the petitioner in both the writ petitions are one and the same. He submits that even after passing of the order directing the SubDivisional Officer (R), no decision has been taken.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 3/State submits that according to his instructions, proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) pursuant to the order dated 04.09.2020 could not be completed because of the interim order passed in the present writ petition.

¶29

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

On due consideration of the aforementioned facts of the case and the submission made by the counsel for the parties as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly,

¶32

it is dismissed .

¶33

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands

¶34

dismissed .

¶35

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY	Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶36

Dey

Dashrath Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrath Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikant Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Susanna Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh