Rajendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:25879

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 80 of 2023

¶6

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶7

1 - Tilaso W/o Maheshwar Singh, Aged About 45 Years Caste Gond, R/o. Village Kanakpur, Village Panchayat Kanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Collector, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Divisional Forest Officer, South Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Assistan Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Village Panchayat Kanakpur, Through The Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Kanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - Rambilas S/o Manbodh, Aged About 58 Years Husband Of The Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Kanapur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar,

2

Chhattisgarh.

District

Surajpur

7 - Rajendra Singh S/o. Budhman Singh, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village Kanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶21

8 - Jaikaran S/o. Hukum, Aged About 55 Years R/o. Village Kanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶22

9 - Indra Singh, S/o. Bodh Sai Aged About 37 Years R/o. Village Kanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶23

10 - Awadh Kumar, S/o. Manbodh, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village Kanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶24

11 - Basant Singh, S/o. Nanku, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village Kanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶25

12 - Ram Kumar S/o. Ran Sai Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village Kanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶26

--- Respondent(s)

¶27

WPC No. 744 of 2023

¶28

1 - Rajendra Singh S/o Budhman Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Kanakpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Premnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶29

2 - Jaikaran S/o Hukum Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Kanakpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Premnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶30

--- Petitioner(s)

¶31

Versus

¶32

3

¶33

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Caste - Gond, R/o Village - Kanakpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Premnagar, District - Surjapur (C.G.)

¶34

2 - The Collector Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶35

3 - The Divisional Forest Officer South Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶36

4 - The Assistant Commission Tribal Development Department Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶37

5 - Tilaso W/o Maheshwar Singh Aged About 45 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Village - Kanakpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Premnagar, District - Surjapur (C.G.)

¶38

... Respondents

¶39

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶40

------------------------------	-----	------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner(s)	:-	Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate
For State	:-	Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L.
For Respondent No.5	:-	Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate

¶41

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

24.06.2026

1. Heard.

2. Both these petitions arise out of a dispute in respect of the patta/lease of the land in question, which has been granted in favour of the petitioner, Tilaso, in WPC No. 80/2023.

¶46

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondents, without any authority of law, are attempting to

¶47

4

¶48

raise/construct a market over the land in question, which has been duly granted in favour of the petitioner by way of lease/patta. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the lawful lessee and continues to remain in settled possession of the said land. It is contended that since the lease/patta granted in favour of the petitioner has not been cancelled or set aside by any competent authority in accordance with law, the private respondents have no right, title, or authority to interfere with the petitioner’s possession or to raise any construction over the said land. It is further pointed out that in the present proceedings, this Court had already granted an order of status quo, which continues to operate, thereby protecting the petitioner’s possession over the land in question. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that appropriate protection be granted to the petitioner against illegal interference by the private respondents and that they be restrained from raising any construction or creating third-party rights over the land in question.

¶49

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that they have already filed an appropriate application for cancellation of the lease/patta granted in favour of the petitioner, and the same is presently pending consideration before the competent Collector. It is further submitted that two of the respondents have also filed a writ petition seeking appropriate

¶50

5

¶51

directions for expeditious disposal of the said cancellation application.

¶52

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

¶53

6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, and the fact that the dispute with respect to cancellation of the lease/patta granted in favour of the petitioner is already pending consideration before the competent Collector, this Court is of the view that at this stage no order can be passed in respect of the patta which has been granted in favour of the petitioner namely Tilaso and which has not been cancelled in accordance with law.

¶54

7. Since the matter is sub judice before the competent authority, the parties are relegated to pursue their respective remedies before the said authority. It is observed that the competent Collector shall consider and decide the pending application for cancellation of lease/patta in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, as expeditiously as possible.

¶55

8. Till such decision is taken by the competent authority, the State as well as the private respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner-Tilaso. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question, except by due process of law.

¶56

6

¶57

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petitions

¶58