Disposed

Dinesh Kumar Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026WPC/2205/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus to grant patta for disputed land and direct government authorities not to construct a shelter colony (Gothan) on the said land. The court held that the petitioner should file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities within 15 days, which they would then consider after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

No order as to cost(s). The petition stands disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file an application before concerned authorities within 15 days for consideration on merit with a hearing opportunity within 60 days.

Dinesh Kumar Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010112222021

2026:CGHC:40580

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2205 of 2021

¶7

1 - Dinesh Kumar Chouhan Son Of Radhelal Ram Aged About 42 Years Caste - Chik, Resident Of Village- Dokda, Tahsil- Kansabel, District- Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

RAVVAUTTEJKUMARRAJU Digitally signedby RAVVA UTTEJKUMAR RAJUDate: 2026.09.1819:12:51 +0530

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Jashpur District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The Tahsildar Kansabel, District- Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Kansabel, DistrictJashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Gram Panchayat Dokda, Through The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dokda, Tahsil- Kansabel, District- Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)

¶18

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A.

¶20

: Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A.

¶21

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

17/09/2026

¶24

The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶25

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition preferred by the petitioner and call for the records pertaining to the present case.

¶26

10.2That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondent State Authorities directing them to grant patta of the disputed property to the petitioner.

¶27

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent State Authorities directing them not to construct any Gothan over the disputed property bearing Khasra No. 628/1 admeasuring area 4.205 hectares located at Village-Dokda, Tahsil-Kansabel District-Jashpur (C.G.).

¶28

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.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and

¶30

his ancestors have been in peaceful possession of the disputed land for more than 50 years, where the petitioner has constructed a house and is carrying on agricultural activities, and that the

¶31

¶32

proposed construction of Gothan over the said land is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when other vacant government land is available nearby. He further submits that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, despite his long-standing possession and repeated applications for grant of patta, and therefore the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that, so far as the construction of Gothan is concerned, the proposal in this regard has already been dropped by the State Government. He next submits that s o far as the relief sought under Clause 10.2 is concerned, the petitioner may file an appropriate application before the authorities concerned, which shall consider the same in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the matter, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such application, the concerned authorities shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a further period of 60 days.

¶35

¶36

With this observations and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

¶37

No order as to cost(s)

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶40

Judge

¶41

U.K. Raju

Dinesh Kumar Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Chouhan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases