1 2025:CGHC:9494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 7293 of 2010 • Guru Ghasidas University Bilaspur (C.G.) (Central University) Acting through its Registrar ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (R) Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Tahsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Principal, Industrial Training Institute Koni Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. Palm Education Society Bhilai Acting through Secretary Alok Tripathi, R/o Quarter No. 74/5 Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 8. Savita Tripathi W/o Alok Tripathi, R/o Quarter No. 74/5 Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 6/ State For Respondents No. 7 & 8 : : Mr. S.P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/02/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue directions to the respondents to place all the records relating to acquisition of land by the State in Village Koni and Birkona since the year 1960-61 till date. 10.2 That all the revenue records including the land map of Villages – Koni and Birkona of Bilaspur Tahsil which are in possession of Government Dairy Farm, the Model Industrial Training Centre, the Petitioner Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 University be also directed to be placed before this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent No. 6 to place the records of acquisition of lands described in the letter dated 23.12.1972 (Annexure P-7) and the lands acquired prior to that. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 3 and 5 to take immediate action on the request made to them by letter dated 02.12.2009 (Annexure P-5), dated 23.12.1972 (Annexure P-7), dated 18.05.2010 (Annexure P-11), dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure P-12), 20.05.2010 (Annexure P-13), 08.06.2010 (Annexure P- 14), dated 10.06.2010 (Annexure P-15). 10.5 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to command the respondent No. 2, 3 and 5 by a writ of mandamus to correct the revenue records with respect to the land shown in Annexure P-1. 10.6 That this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondents not to allow cutting of trees and construction of any building in the area around the University campus and particularly the land in question also prohibit sale of lands around the area till proposals for expansion of the University are finalized. 10.7 That such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted in favour of the petitioner University.” 2. This petition is liable to be dismissed on two counts: first- the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur and there is an efficacious statutory remedy to prefer a second appeal before the Commissioner and second- a sale deed has been executed in favour of respondents No. 7 and 8 and to assail that sale deed, the petitioner should approach the competent Civil Court. 3. Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land was acquired in the colonial era in the year 1942 for defence purposes; in the year 1972 for ITI and in the year 1984 for University, but the authorities of the revenue department could 3 not correct the revenue entries, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to correct the revenue records. Mr. Avinash K. Mishra would further submit that the compensation against the acquisition of land has already been received by the land owners. 4. Mr. S.P. Kale, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 7 and 8 would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to prefer a second appeal against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur dated 18.11.2020, but the same has not been challenged. They would further contend that to avoid the sale deed executed in favour of respondents No. 7 and 8, the petitioner should file a duly constituted civil suit and in this petition, the execution of the sale deed cannot be assailed. 5. Taking into consideration above discussed facts, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti