1 2025:CGHC:36046-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 511 of 2025 Smt. Nisha Devi W/o Chandrika Prasad Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No.7, Village And Post- Korja, Tahsil Pendraroad, District- Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Gaurela, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 3 - The Revenue Inspector Gaurela, Tahsil-Pendraroad, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Tahsil- Pendraroad, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 5 - Ashok Kumar S/o Munnalal Verma (Ex Head Master), R/o Village- Korja, Tahsil- Pendraroad, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dheerendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.25 14:49:10 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 13.06.2025 (Smt. Nisha Devi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2781 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was disposed of by learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that the appellant is an agriculturist residing in Village Korja, District Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. The land in question, bearing Khasra No. 949 with an area of 0.3640 hectares, is government land designated for public use as a pathway for farmers. Respondent No. 5- Ashok Kumar has illegally encroached upon this government land, blocking access to the traditional pathway used by villagers and farmers. Despite a stay order dated June 20, 2012, passed by the Tehsildar (Respondent No. 4) in favor of the appellant and villagers, Ashok Kumar proceeded with the encroachment. For over 13 years, the respondent authorities have taken no concrete action. The government had planned to construct a concrete road on this passage as part of its rural 3 development scheme, which is now obstructed due to Ashok Kumar's illegal possession. The entire farming community in the village is suffering due to this act. Being aggrieved by the revenue authorities' inaction, the appellant approached the this Court by filing writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment and take action under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (CGLRC), whereby, the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 13.06.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had approached the concerned authorities by filing an application, registered as Revenue Case No. 202401280400011/2022-23, before the Tahsildar regarding the illegal encroachment by Respondent No. 5 in 2023. This cannot be ignored, as it is a well- established principle of law that the nomenclature of an application is not determinative, rather, it is the contents of the application that matter. The appellant, a poor villager, was unaware of the exact legal provision but was aware of her rights. She, along with other affected villagers, submitted an application to the Tahsildar (Annexure P/13 in the original petition). Although the application did not specifically mention that it was filed under Section 248 of the CGLRC, this omission is not determinative. The application submitted to the Tahsildar (Annexure P/13 in the original petition) in 2023 should be considered as an application 4 under Section 248 of the CGLRC, as the contents of the application along with the provisions of Section 248 of the CGLRC. He further submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant had already submitted an application to the Tahsildar in 2023, which was similar in nature to what the Court directed the writ petitioner to file under Section 248 of the CGLRC, when passing the order dated June 13, 2025. Since an application of a similar nature is already pending before the Tahsildar, respondent No. 5 should be directed to remove his barbed wires during the pendency of the said application. He also submits that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact and law, and has disposed of the writ petition without issuing notice or calling for response from the State or encroacher, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 5 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition holding that an alternate remedy is available to the writ petitioner / appellant herein under Section 248 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, also perusing the pleadings made in writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu