Tikendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:21430

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 6376 of 2025

¶6

1 - Tikendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Chhabilal Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Baidhpara, Nagar Panchayat Aamadi, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - Deputy Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Zone Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶13

6 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶14

7 - Tahsildar Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶15

8 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Aamadi, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Advocate

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶19

07/05/2025

¶20

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities

¶22

2

¶23

to consider the representation of the petitioner and to remove/demolish illegal construction of complex building from government grass land bearing khasra no. 1700 area 0.8100 hectare at the earliest and to give nistari road using for cultivating paddy and vegetable over his agriculture land, in the interest of justice.

¶24

(10.2) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in raising construction of a commercial complex over the road, as reflected in the photographs annexed with the petition. According to the petitioner, due to such construction, he is being deprived of the use of the nistari road leading to his agricultural land, which action is alleged to be illegal and contrary to law. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his representation and to remove/demolish the alleged illegal construction so as to restore access to the nistari road connected to his agricultural land.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 8, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Aamadi, District Dhamtari, is carrying out construction in a manner not sanctioned by law. It is contended that the land in question was originally reserved for the construction of a school; however, instead of utilizing the land for the said purpose, respondent No. 8 has undertaken construction of a commercial complex thereon. It is further argued that the construction in question would obstruct the petitioner’s access to his agricultural field, thereby adversely affecting his right of ingress and egress. On such grounds, it is prayed that the construction raised by the respondent authorities be directed to be demolished.

¶27

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 submits that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. It is contended that the construction undertaken by respondent No. 8

¶28

3

¶29

is strictly in accordance with law and after obtaining due permission from the competent authorities as well as the State Government. It is further submitted that the commercial complex has been designed with two sufficiently wide passages, ensuring uninterrupted access to the petitioner’s agricultural land, and therefore, no obstruction whatsoever has been caused. Learned counsel further submits that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and are matters falling within the domain of the competent Civil Court.

¶30

5. Learned State Counsel supports the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No. 8 and submits that the construction has been undertaken only after obtaining due approval from the State Government and other competent authorities. It is submitted that though the land was initially recorded in the revenue records for the purpose of construction of a school, subsequently the nature and allotment of the land were duly changed and the land was allotted in favour of Nagar Panchayat Aamadi, District Dhamtari, in accordance with law.

¶31

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

7. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 have relied upon certain photographs and maps in support of their respective claims. From the material placed on record, it appears that sufficient passages have been provided between the shops to facilitate ingress and egress to the agricultural land of the petitioner. The dispute raised by the petitioner essentially pertains to alleged obstruction of access and easementary rights, which involve disputed questions of fact and cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved by infringement of any civil or easementary right, he is at liberty to avail the

¶33

4

¶34

remedy before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶35

8. From perusal of the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is primarily founded upon an apprehension that access to his agricultural field, situated behind the shopping complex, may become inconvenient on account of the construction being raised by respondent No. 8.

¶36

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that Nagar Panchayat Aamadi, District Dhamtari has already provided two sufficiently wide passages to enable access to the petitioner’s agricultural land, and further considering that the construction is being undertaken after obtaining all necessary permissions from the competent authorities and the State Government, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶37

10. It is, however, observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by violation of any easementary or civil right, he shall be at liberty to approach the competent forum/authority for appropriate relief in accordance with law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Jyoti

Tikendra Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tikendra Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Gyaneshwar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Sharma @ Mukesh Sharma Vs Election Commission of India

Smt. Ayate Madkami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandraprabha Kumari Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anant Kishore Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chintaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh