1 2025:CGHC:36040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3892 of 2025 1 - Gorelal Chandra S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Chandra Aged About 63 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar Ward No. 3, Nagar Panchayat- Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti C.G. 2 - Suklal Chanddra S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Chandra Aged About 48 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar Ward No. 3, Nagar Panchayat- Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector, Sakti, District Sakti C.G. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Sakti C.G. 4 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti C.G. 5 - Kartik Ram Chandra S/o Late Shri Visheshar Chandra R/o Ward No. 12, Amapali Mohalla, Nagar Panchayat-Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti C.G. 6 - Mahendra Kumar Chandra S/o Shri Kartik Ram Chandra R/o Ward No. 12, Amapali Mohalla, Nagar Panchayat-Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Nayak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the 2 following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to place all the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quashed the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 2. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to correct the entries of revenue record of the petitioners. 10.4 That, any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 5927 area 0.344 hectare (0.85 acre) and respondent no. 5 are recorded owner of land bearing khasra no. 5925 which is adjacent to petitioner’s land. In the year 2016, when petitioner started construction of house over his land, then respondent no. 5 and 6 objected and filed an application for stay before respondent no. 4 which was rejected. Then respondent no. 5 and 6 forcibly started encroaching the petitioner’s land. Then petitioners filed a civil suit which was dismissed on 10.01.2022. The petitioners then filed an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 09.05.2023. Against this order, the respondent no. 5 and 6 filed Second Appeal which is pending before this Court. On 03.04.2025 the respondent no. 2 rejected the appeal 3 filed by the petitioners. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels and the fact that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner may avail the alternate remedy, if so desire. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dispose of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima