Disposed¶26

Anand Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jul 2026WPC/5523/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 5523 of 2021; Anand Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Chhattisgarh; decided 17/07/2026 by Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; subject-matter: encroachment alleged over public water tap/Nalkoop at Kharsia, district Raigarh, by private respondent Smt. Kanta Devi; Chief Municipal Officer, Kharsia enquiry affidavit dated 30.03.2022 found no bore or water tap; petitioner filed no rejoinder; writ petition disposed of without directions; no statute or precedent cited; useful for public-utility encroachment enquiries and uncontroverted-official-affidavit disposals.

What did the court decide?

The affidavit of Respondent No. 3 dated 30.03.2022 — recording that enquiry and physical verification revealed no bore or water tap at the site — stood uncontroverted, as the petitioner filed no counter-affidavit or rejoinder.

Anand Kumar Kesharwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

CGHC010356032021

2026:CGHC:30522

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 5523 of 2021

¶7

1 - Anand Kumar Kesharwani S/o Late Om Prakash Kesharwani Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 13 Behind Ganj, Kharsia District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Collector Raigarh, Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Kharsia, Thana And Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) S. D. O. Office Kharsia, Thana And Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Babulal Garg Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No.13, Nazul Plot No. 283/3 Towan Kharisa,thana And Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶15

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate
For Respondents-State For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. K.K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer : Mr. Manas Vajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate

¶16

¶17

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

ORDER ON BOARD

¶19

17/07/2026

¶20

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

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to suitably direct the Respondent Authorities for taking the appropriate action at earliest so that the peoples of the vicinity may use pump as they want.

¶22

10.2 Any other relief, order/direction may be pleased to issue in the facts and circumstances of the case including imposing costs.”

¶23

Petitioner has not sought any relief for himself. It appears that the petitioner has prayed for the relief for the public at large, however, this Court considering the nature of grievance raised in this writ petition that the water tap which was installed for the public purpose and being used by public has been encroached upon by the private respondent no. 5, directed the Respondent No. 3 to enquire into the matter and submit affidavit.

¶24

Reply has been filed by the Respondents No. 1 & 2 stating that the grievance of the petitioner is against the Respondent No. 3. As per direction issued by this Court, affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 on 30.03.2022 mentioning that in enquiry as also, on physical verification, it did not reveal that there was any bore or water tap (Nalkoop) was there. No sign was found to suggest that there was any Nalkoop earlier and accordingly, submitted affidavit.

¶25

The statement made in the affidavit is not controverted by the petitioner by filing any counter affidavit or any rejoinder.

¶26

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any good ground to continue with this writ petition any further and this writ petition is disposed of in view of the affidavit submitted by the Respondent No. 3.

¶27

¶28