Disposed

Manish Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2026WPC/3086/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition regarding the demolition of the petitioner's structure and disturbance of possession. The court held that the claims for compensation, reconstruction, and declaration of possession lie in the civil/criminal jurisdiction, not writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to approach the competent authority within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach competent authority/apposal within 60 days. Interim order remains operative.

Manish Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010179732021

2026:CGHC:39838

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3086 of 2021

¶7

1 - Manish Rai S/o Shailendra Kumar Rai Aged About 53 Years R/o Jabdapara, New Sarkanda Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

RAVVAUTTEJKUMARRAJU Digitallysigned byRAVVA UTTEJKUMAR RAJUDate:2026.09.1118:13:05+0530

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home / Transport Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector Cum District Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

3 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

4 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

5 - Tahsildar Tah. Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Sub Divisional Officer Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause title is downloa	ded from CIS Periphery.)
For Petitioner	: Mr.Chandrabhushan Paswan,Advocate.
For State	: Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, G.A.
For Respondents No. 3 & 4	: Ms. Aarti Tiwari, Counsel appears on
	behalf of Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate.

¶18

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

¶20

11/09/2026

¶21

The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :-

¶22

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ for restraining the respondent authorities from disturbing peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said land and declare that the petitioner is in lawful possession over the said land in question and direct the respondent authorities to reconstruct the structure of the petitioner, as it originally existed, at their cost and further direct them to pay Rs. 4, 74, 241. 36 as compensation, which the petitioner suffered as a result of demolition of structure over said land.

¶23

10.2 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances, may also be provided to the petitioner.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities, without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, arbitrarily demolished the petitioner’s boundary wall, gate and house standing on Khasra No. 993/5/M/1, admeasuring 0.26 acres, despite the petitioner possessing a registered sale deed dated 07.01.1991, mutation entries, demarcation report and revenue records showing his ownership and possession for about 30 years. He further submits that the respondents’ assertion that the land is Government land is contrary to the existing revenue records and demarcation report,

¶25

¶26

and that the demolition, without following due process of law and the principles of natural justice, is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and has caused the petitioner substantial financial loss of Rs. 4,74,241.36, along with mental agony and damage to his reputation.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears from the relief sought in paragraph 10.1 of the petition that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot appropriately be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is, therefore, required to avail the appropriate remedy by instituting requisite proceedings before the competent Court/authority for grant of the reliefs claimed, including the relief of compensation. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court/authority and avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶29

However, with regard to the interim order dated 20.04.2022, the same shall remain operative for a period of 60 days from today, to enable the petitioner to institute the appropriate application/appeal/proceeding before the competent Court/authority. Since the matter has remained pending since 2021, the petitioner is directed to avail the appropriate remedy within the aforesaid period of 60 days. The interim protection

¶30

¶31

granted by this Court shall continue till expiry of the said period of 60 days.

¶32

With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶33

No order as to cost (s).

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶36

U.K. Raju

Manish Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Rai 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