1 2025:CGHC:25558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3011 of 2025 Yogendra Tamrakar S/o. Shri Bhagwati Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 61 Years R/o. Saraswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Registrar, Public Trust-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Panjak Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19.06.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: ‘10. RELIEFS SOUGHT:- (a). That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and declare the action of the Respondent in not continuing old case number 11 B 113(4) of 2000-01 is illegal and in violation of Para-17 of Annexure P/1, therefore, new case opening by Respondent be held to be illegal and likewise 2 issuance of notice Annexure P/5 dated 30.05.2025 and Annexure P/6 dated 07.06.2025 are also illegal since, there is admission of Respondent that 15 days clear notice was not given, therefore, amended notice is illegal because old notice ought to have been cancelled and new notices ought to have been issued but not in new case but in old case No. 11 B-113(4) of 2000-01, in the interest of justice. (b). Any other relief or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 2. By way of this writ petition, petitioner is challenging notice No. 911/Vachak/Registrar, Sarwajanik Nyas/SDO/2025 dated 30.05.2025 and also amended public notice published in Nai Duniya Daily Newspaper Raipur dated 07.06.2025, which are admittedly illegal and bad in law. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Registrar, Sarwajanik Nyas/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has issued the impugned/aforesaid notice without receiving the original records of the case No.11 ब -113(4) 2000-01 dated 19.09.2011, hence, it deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned State Counsel contended that petitioner may raise his grievance/objection before the Registrar, Sarwajanik Nyas/Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur as raised before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in FAM No.63/2018. 3 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of reliefs, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that the Registrar, Sarwajanik Nyas/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has issued the notice in pursuance of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in FAM No.63/2018, further considering the fact that petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy to raise his grievance/objection before the Registrar, Raipur, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-