Sangeeta Mishra Vs Vicky Verma

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:6224

¶3

Digitally signed by RUKHSAR RUKHSAR BANO BANO Date: 2026.02.05 10:35:44 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 464 of 2026

¶7

1 - Sangeeta Mishra W/o Santosh Kumar Mishra Aged About 41 Years R/o Nandi Chouk Tikarapara District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Ranjeeta Pandeya W/o Santosh Pandeya Aged About 37 Years R/o Police Line District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, Through General Attorney Santosh Kumar Mishra S/o Late Rb Mishra Aged 47 R/o R/o Nandi Chouk Tikarapara District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Vicky Verma S/o J J Verma R/o 11/171, Shrinagar Khamtarai Front Of D M Rao Complex District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶12

2 - Amit Kumar Chanudhari S/o Mahesh Chaudhari R/o Naya Talab Gudhiyari District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶13

3 - Aakash Mallik S/o Subbal Mallik R/o House No 4/365, Gudhiyari Dindayal Upadhyaya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Chandrabhushan Tiwari S/o Ram Pyare Tiwari R/o House No.11/289, Sector 02,natthu Sahu Ata Chakki Gali, Shivanandnagar District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶15

5 - B.P. Tiwari S/o Late Ram Pyare Tiwari R/o Tiwari Dairy Farm Shivanandnagar District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶16

6 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur White House District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶17

7 - Zone Commissioner Municipal Corporation Zone No.1 Santoshi Nagar , Khamtarai District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶18

8 - Section Engineer Municipal Corporation Zone No -1, Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶19

2

¶20

9 - Assistant Engineer Municipal Corporation Zone No-1 Santoshi Nagar Khamtarai District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶21

10 - Tahsildar Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶22

11 - Patwari Village Gondwara District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶25

For Petitioners	: Mr. Raman Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents No.6 to 9	: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For State/Respondents No.10 & 11	: Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

¶26

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶27

Order on Board

¶28

04/02/2026

¶29

Heard.

¶30

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

¶31

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call records with respect to the instant writ petition.

¶32

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondent No. 6 to 9, 10 and 11, being statutory and public authorities, to forthwith exercise their powers under the applicable municipal and revenue laws and take immediate steps to stop all illegal and unauthorised construction being carried out upon land bearing Khasra No. 675/3, Village Gondwara, R.N.M. Raipur, which is recorded in the name and possession of the Petitioners.

¶33

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 10 (Tehsildar, Raipur) to take on record and decide Annexure P-4

¶34

3

¶35

(application under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code seeking stay on illegal encroachment) and Annexure P-5 (application for demarcation dated 22.01.2026) in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period.

¶36

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 11 (Patwari, Gondwara, Raipur) to conduct proper demarcation of original Khasra No. 675 measuring 17,500 square feet and to correct and update the revenue map strictly in accordance with the recorded account division and provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, so as to prevent further encroachment and misuse of revenue records.

¶37

10.5 That during pendency of the present writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the official respondents to ensure maintenance of status quo over the disputed land and to restrain any further construction activity by enforcing statutory provisions, and to pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the interest of justice.”

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, late father of the petitioners, respondents No.4 & 5, and one Koduram Tiwari had jointly purchased land bearing khasra No.675, area 17,500 sq. ft., situated at Village Gondwara, Patwari Halka No.00037, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG), which was subsequently partitioned. In the said partition, 5000 sq. ft. of land fell to the share of the petitioners’ father, which was renumbered as khasra No.675/3. Another 5000 sq. ft. of land, adjacent to the land of petitioners’ father, fell to the share of respondent No.4-

¶39

4

¶40

Chandrabhushan Tiwari, and was renumbered as khasra No.675/2. The said land was thereafter sold by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2. He would further submit that respondent No.2 is constructing a house over the land purchased from respondent No.4. During the course of construction, respondent No.2 has encroached upon a portion of the petitioners’ land. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code on 02.01.2026 (Annexure -P/4) before the Tahsildar, Raipur, and also submitted an application dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure -P/5) before the Tahsildar, Raipur, seeking demarcation of the said land, but no demarcation has been carried out till date. Hence, learned counsel prays that this petition may be admitted for hearing, as respondent No.2 is raising construction over the petitioners’ land by encroaching upon a portion thereof.

¶41

Per contra , learned State counsel would submit that since proceedings under Section 250 of the CG Land Revenue Code have already been initiated by petitioners and the application for demarcation has also been filed, therefore, the issue as to whether respondent No.2 has encroached upon the petitioners’ land can be decided in said revenue proceedings. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable.

¶42

Having considered the contentions putforth by learned counsel for the parties and the facts of the case, this Court finds that the petitioners have already availed the statutory remedy by initiating proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code against the respondents No.1 to 4 and by seeking demarcation of the land. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition. However, the Tahsildar, Raipur (respondent No.10) is expected to

¶43

5

¶44

consider and decide the applications (Annexures P/4 and P/5) dated 02.01.2026 and 05.01.2026, respectively, expeditiously. Respondent No.10- Tahsildar, Raipur is also directed to get demarcation of petitioners’ land within 30 days from today.

¶45

In view of the availability and invocation of an alternative remedy, this writ petition stands disposed of .

¶46

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶49

Rukhsar

Sangeeta Mishra v. Vicky Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Mishra v. Vicky Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Fatima Tigga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cheruram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anupama Asthana Vs Uttam Prasad Razak

Sanjay Nikunj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vasu Choubey Vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank

Mahadev Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Sanawal Vs Anand Kumar Netam