1 2025:CGHC:38471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5315 of 2024 1 - Chaitram Sahu S/o Late Runaram Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shashtri Ward, Patpar, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Chaitram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shashtri Ward, Patpar, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - Smt. Durgesh Nandani W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shashtri Ward, Patpar, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 4 - Mohd. Bashir Hingora S/o Late Shri Abdul Kadar Hingora Aged About 54 Years R/o Sadar Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 5 - Ratnesh Kumar Gupta S/o Badri Prasad Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Munshi Ismile Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 6 - Roshan Mishra S/o Shri Arun Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o Prem Prakash Colony, Sant Kanwar Ram Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 7 - Rajendra Saluja S/o Shri Mahendra Saluja Aged About 45 Years R/o SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.08.06 11:40:09 +0530 2 Nehru Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G. 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G. 3 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan (Mandi) Board Through Its Managing Director, Mandi Board Bhawan, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 4 - The Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Through Its Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 5 - The Collector District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 6 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 7 - The Tahsildar Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 8 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhatapara Through Its Secretary, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Gupta, GA 3 For Respondent No.3 & 8 For Respondent No.4 : : Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur assisted by Shri Navoday Singh, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Rai. Advocate on behalf of Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/08/2025 Challenge in the present petition is to issue a direction to the respondent authorities/respondent No.3 & 8 to stop the construction of boundary wall of newly constructed building and shed of Krishi Upaj Mandi at Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara and to vacate the 50 ft. passage in the backside for approaching the agricultural land of the petitioners and other agriculturists. The petitioners therefore, filed the present petition seeking following reliefs: 10.1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order by directing the respondent state authorities to protect the fundamental rights of the petitioners to livelihood to cultivate the crops in their agricultural land with agriculture machine without obstruction and interruption. 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order by directing the respondent/respondent NO.3 & 8 to vacate the 50 ft. passage in the back/corner side to approach the agricultural land of the petitioners and other agriculturists. 10.3. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents authority. 4 10.4. that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief in favour of the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the farmers, title holders, having possession over the land at vilage Semariya, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara and they are not able to cultivate their crops with agricultural machine due to lack of passage. The respondent authorities are closing the permanent approach way of the petitioners by constructing a boundary wall for the Mandi. He submits that they are deprived of their fundamental right to livelihood He has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others and Suresh Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1996) 10 SCC 104. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 & 8 submits that the land has been allocated to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhatapara for construction of the mandi premises by Government of CG, Department of Agriculture vide it letter dated 20.04.2016. After allocation of the land, the boundary wall on the notified land started and 50% of the construction work is completed. Representation was filed by the petitioners before the Collector,Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara for approach path of 50 ft. to their agricultural fields. Report was sought by the Collector from the Tahsildar, Bhatapara who has informed that 30 ft wide road is available to the petitioners on the eastern side of the proposed mandi. A panchanama was also submitted by the Tahsildar which was prepared by the Patwari. It is submitted that after issuance 5 of the notices to the respondents, the revenue authorities have prepared a report and submitted before the Tahsildar, Bhatapara. The Tahsildar, Bhatapara has submitted in his report dated 26.11.2024 that 30 ft. road is available to the petitioners to reach their agricultural files from eastern and western side from village Khokhali, It is submitted that in the mandi premises, huge stock of food grains are kept for sale and purchase by the farmers and traders, there are godowns inside the premises which stocks food grains and requires adequate level of security and therefore the petitioners may approach by the alternative route to reach their agricultural fields as per the reports submitted by the revenue authorities. He therefore submits that the petitioners can avail the alternative remedy available to them under the law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also submits that the petitioners are having 30 ft wide approach road available on the eastern side of the proposed mandi to their agricultural lands and from the western side they can easily approach from village Khokhali and there is no obstruction being caused to the petitioners. 5. I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and also gone through the documents annexed with the petition. As per Annexure R-8/4, which is a report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 26.11.2024 along with the report of the Patwari and panchnama, 30 ft . Wide road is available to the petitioners on the eastern side whereas from the western side, there is easy approach via village Khokhali. It is thus clear that there is 30 ft. approach road available to the petitioners to reach to their agricultural fields and the respondents authorities have specifically submitted that no obstruction 6 or hindrance has been caused by the respondent authorities in respect of the petitioners cultivation on their lands. There is no infringement of violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners to carryon their agricultural activities and cultivate their land. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners may agitate their grievance by availing the alternative remedy available to them under the law by filing Civil Suit. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge