1 2025:CGHC:15359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2647 of 2019  Tika Ram Sahu S/o Shri Daya Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Junglepur, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Collector Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer Dongargarh, District Rajnangaon Chhattisgarh. 4. Tahsildar, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5. Gram Panchayat Janakpur Through Its Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Junglepur, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None, even in the second round. For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01. 04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 To kindly call for the record from the respondents. 10.2 To kindly direct the respondents to pay for the loss incurred to the petitioner due to the illegal and arbitrary act of demolishing the construction of the petitioner with interest. 10.3 To kindly direct the respondent to allot land to the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.02 10:14:59 +0530 2 petitioner for construction of house. 10.4 To kindly grant any other relief which seems just and fair in the eyes of law.” 2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the temporary construction over survey No. 254/2, Plot No. 29-42, admeasuring 5 decimal situated at Village Junglepur, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh was demolished after service of notice. He would further submit that initially notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.03.2018 and when the petitioner failed to take appropriate steps, after seven days, the illegal construction was demolished. He would also submit that the petitioner has remedy to approach the competent Civil Court claiming therein damages. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not filed this petition against any specific order rather compensation has been claimed against demolition of illegal construction. As disputed question of facts are involved; therefore, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. Thus, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant