1 / 3 2025:CGHC:47708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2517 of 2024 Smt. Neelam Pipariya W/o Noveshwar Kumar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Baharda, P.S.- Pulgaon, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg (C.G.)491221 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 03-09-2025 2 - The Tahsildar Pandariya, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 3-9-2025 3 - Gram Panchayat, Tah. And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) Through Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Bharda 4 - Smt. Bhanumati Deshmuh W/o Mahendra Deshmukh Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Bharda, P.S.- Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.), 491221 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pravee Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment made by Respondent No.4 on the Government land ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.18 17:29:08 +0530 2 / 3 because on account of that the only passage and approach road of the petitioner’s paddy field and Goat Farm is obstructed which causes great difficulty to the petitioner. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition directing the respondent No.1 & 2 to take immediate steps to get the unauthorized construction by encroachment of Govt. land by respondent No.4 demolished and vacated. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct suitable action under the law against the respondent No.4 against the illegal act of encroachment on govt. land and unauthorized construction on it. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Respondent No.4 being the encroacher may be restrained or removed from the government land as due to her act public at large is suffering a lot. He would next contend that the complaint/application has been filed before the concerned revenue authorities, however, no action has been taken on the said application. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that there is alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 / 3 6. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed for by the petitioner, the instant petition is not maintainable on account of availability of alternate remedy under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu