1 2025:CGHC:38981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4179 of 2025 1 - Manoj Sharma S/o Ashok Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Shabri Nagar, Sukma, District Sukma C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Nawa Raipur C.G. 2 - Commissioner, Bastar Division, Bastar C.G. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma C.G. 4 - Tehsildar, Sukma, District Sukma C.G. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Triapthi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Commissioner, also quash the order dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure P/9), also quash the decision in month of September 2022 under (Annexure P/8) and also to quash the Annexure P/5) Survey of encroacher report as there is no reasoning mentioned in colum No. 11. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased 2 to grant interim relief/status quo with the property in dispute. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other relief/order/direction in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P/10) passed by respondent no. 2 in Revenue Case No. 202304950100027/A-20(1)/2022-23 in case of Manoj Sharma V. State of C.G., settlement on encroached land bearing its Khasra No. 1057/4 area 3444 sq. ft 0.032 in hectare which is attached to the land of the petitioner bearing its Khasra No. 1057/8 has been rejected on illegal and unreasoned irrational order, the petitioner does not have encroachment, but the petitioner do have an encroachment since 2006 and while application for allotment of encroached land the govt. Nazul land in dispute is also attached to the land of the petitioner and as per the revenue Book Circular, the attached land can be allotted to the attached land holder. It is respectfully submitted that, there are rules provided for allotment of Nazul land under Chapter IV(1) Clause 13 and 17 of Revenue Book Circular and order dated 11.09.2019, the District Collector is competent authority whereas the respondent no. 2, who has passed the impugned order against the petitioner without jurisdiction. 3. Learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping 3 this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority and in turn the respondent authorities are directed to consider/decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Since, the petitioner is in possession of the land in question and he has already deposited the settlement amount of Rs. 4.16 lakhs before the competent authority, therefore, till the representation of the petitioner is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti