1 2025:CGHC:33584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3342 of 2025 1 - Smt. Budhari W/o Bhima Aged About 49 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 2 - Pali S/o Dewa Aged About 50 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 3 - Pojja Madkami S/o Hidma Aged About 59 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - Hunga S/o Pojja Madkami Aged About 30 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 5 - Hidme Korram W/o Gangaram Aged About 41 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 6 - Hadma Korram S/o Gangaram Aged About 35 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 7 - Chenaram S/o Ganga Korram Aged About 20 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 8 - Pakali W/o Dewaram Aged About 45 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 9 - Handaram Kurami S/o Hungaram Kurami Aged About 30 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 10 - Kosa S/o Hirma Aged About 26 Years Occupation Labour/ Cultivator, R/o Village Baltikra Pakela Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.) 2 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Chhindgarh, District - Sukma (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Tahsil Chhindgarh District - Sukma (C.G.) 6 - Commandant Central Reserve Police Battalion Sabri Nagar, Sukma, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Respondent No. 6 : : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 3 in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to disturb for cultivating paddy and vegetable over their possession land for survival, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allot the other lands to the petitioners for cultivating paddy and for residential purpose 3 and rehabilitation purpose also before removing the petitioner’s land, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue/pass resolution for the purpose of battalion at vacate another government land to construct the battalion in vacant land, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set-aside. By way of this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality, validity and property of the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the respondent no. 3 has allotted the peaceful possession over the petitioner’s land to the respondent no. 6 without resolution of the gram panchayat and without following Pesha Act and without any consent to the petitioners and villagers which is completely illegal and contrary to the law. 3. Learned counsel for the Union of India contended that if petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2025 of Collector and D.M., Sukma, C.G., then there is alternate remedy available to the petitioner to file 4 appeal before the Secretary, Revenue Department. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the counsel for the parties, since there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner, therefore this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima