1 2025:CGHC:4851-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 22 of 2025 Ambika Prasad Dewangan S/o Late Dwarika Nath Dewangan Aged About 60 Years R/o Baigapara Near Shitla Mandir Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalaya Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education OfÏcer Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 4. Collector G.E. Road Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28 .01.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.28 18:59:02 +0530 2 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the orders dated 20.07.2022 & 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2471 of 2014 (Ambika Prasad Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) & REVP No. 137 of 2022 (Ambika Prasad Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner and dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that it is not in dispute that the father of appellant Late Dwarikanath Dewangan had filed a civil suit for taking possession of land bearing Khasra No. 308/1 admeasuring 8100 sq.ft., but the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation. After death of father of appellant has filed a case that respondents have encroached the land bearing Khasra No. 308/1 at Model Town Junwani Bhilai, P.H. 21, R.I.C. Durg-1, Tahsil & Durg (C.G.) admeasuring 8100 sq.ft. under Article 300A of the Constitution of India either acquiring the land or paying rent/damages till date. 4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that it is also not in dispute that there was another case regarding vacation of land bearing Khasra No. 40 area 0.07 hectare, in which Primary School Model Town has been filed which was decided by another WP No. 283 of 2015 decided on 29.08.2019 against which writ appeal was filed as WA No. 458 of 2019 which was decided on 14.10.2019 by Division Bench of this Court, for which civil suit is pending in Civil Court, meaning thereby the government has constructed school without acquisition in the land of appellant bearing Khasra No. 308/1 & 3 841 in Model Town Bhilai, District Durg admeasuring area 8100 sq.ft. and 0.07 hectare respectively.He also submits that as clear from the order dated 20.07.2012 paragraph 06 wherein Annexure R/3 (in the writ petition) dated 30.09.2011 has been discussed sale about Khasra No.841 area 0.07 hectare of Model Town regarding Primary School, while looking to the para 01 of judgment it is clear that land is situated in Khasra No.308/1 at Model Town Junwani Bhilai, P.H. No. 21, R.I.C. Durg-1, Tahsil & District Durg admeasuring 8100 sq.ft., therefore, identity of land involved in WPC No. 283 of 2015 and WPC No. 2471 of 2014 are quite different because in WPC No. 283 of 2015 Khasra No. 841 area 0.07 hectare is involved while in present petition i.e. 2471/2014 Khasra No.381/1 area 8100 sq.ft. is involved. 5. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2471 of 2014 and REVP No. 137 of 2022 has failed to consider this aspect that in both cases although school building was erected in two different Khasra number of Model Town Junwani Bhilai, District Durg, for which two separate proceedings were filed, therefore, the learned Single Judge has not decided the case of appellant regarding Khasra No. 308/1 although earlier order passed by this Court on 20.07.2022 has on pointing out the mistake mentioned in para 06 of the order, has admitted REVP No. 137 of 2022, but in this review petition also dispute of Khasra no. 308/1 admeasuring 8100 sq.ft. was not decided, therefore, appellant being remediless has filed this writ appeal either for deciding by this Court or for re-deciding the case. Hence, the aforesaid orders dated 20.07.2022 & 27.11.2024 passed in WPC No. 2471 of 2014 and REVP No. 137 of 2022 are untenable in the eyes of law. 4 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner as well as rightly dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 8. Learned Single Judge was issued notice to the respondents in the petition bearing WPC No. 2471 of 2014 the State Government have entered appearance and filed their reply on 20.08.2015. In the reply, the State has taken specific stand, which for ready reference is being reproduced herein under:- “5. Therefore, it was clear that the petitioner was entitled to either the land being returned to him or payment of compensation. It was made clear by the Court while deciding the earlier writ petition on 20/04/2011, that, if the petitioner is neither paid compensation nor the land is vacated it would be open for him to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under law. Presently, the land has been returned to the petitioner which is evident by letter dated 12/09/2011 (Annexure R/2) issued by the OfÏce of the Block Education OfÏcer, Durg. By this letter dated 12/09/2011 the petitioner was informed that he would be handed over possession of the School Building on 5 15/09/2011 at 01:00 PM (afternoon). 6. Thereafter, vide letter dated 30/09/2011 (Annexure R/3) the petitioner was again informed that the respondent authorities have vacated the school premises and as such the petitioner is free to occupy the premises and to use the land as he deems fit. 7. Accordingly, a Panchnama was prepared on 26/11/2011 (Annexure R/4) in which B.E.O. and the petitioner were present, the land in question was measured and thereafter, the said land was found to have been occupied in some parts by one Sukhwant Singh, it is submitted that Sukhwant Singh has not been arrayed as a respondent in the present writ petition and it is made clear that the answering respondents herein, have no knowledge with respect to occupation of the land in question as well as the premises by the said SukhwantSingh.” 9. It would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of the contents of Annexure R/2 and Annexure R/3 (in the writ petition) enclosed along with reply of the State, which for ready reference are also being reproduced below :- “Annexure R/2), dated 12.09.2011 mijksDr fo"k;kafdr ,oa lanafHkZr i= ds ifjikyu esa izkFkfed 'kkyk Hkou ekWMy Vkmu fHkykbZ dks vkidks fnukad 15-09-2011 dks nksigj 1-00 cts gLrkarfjr fd;k tkosxk vr% vki bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad 6 15-09-2011 dks nksigj 1 cts vfuok;Z :i ls mifLFkr gksosA Annexure R/3), dated 30.09.2011 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk lanfHkZr izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-04-11 ds ifjikyu ftlesa 'kkyk Hkou dh Hkweh [kkyh djus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k x;k gS rnuqlkj vkidh futh HkwEkh [kljk ua- 841 jdck 0-07 gs- esa lapkfyr 'kkl- izkFkfed 'kkyk ekWMy Vkmu dks vU;= LFkkukarfjr dj Hkwfe ij ls dCtk NksM+ fn;k x;k gSA mDr Hkweh dk mi;ksx vki tc pkgs tSlk dj ldrs gSaA” 10. From the reply of the State, it further reveals that subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid two correspondences, dated 12.09.2011 and 30.09.2011, a Panchnama was also prepared in presence of all the Authorities on 26.11.2011. In the course of preparation of the Panchnama, it was found that there was some illegal encroachment made by one Sukhwant Singh without the knowledge, notice and permission of the State Government. The said person had encroached the property after the State Government had vacated the possession of the said premises by making a correspondence to the appellant to take over the possession of the same. 11. The stand of the State Government even today is that they have already relinquished the said portion of the land and the construction raised thereon. It was specifically informed and intimated to the appellant, of the State having left the said premises and the appellant was also requested to take over possession of the said land. 12. While passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge held that the relief sought for by the appellant in the writ petition cannot be granted 7 at this juncture exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court. If at all the said premises has been later on illegally occupied or encroached upon by Sukhwant Singh or any other person, the remedy available to the appellant for getting the said person evicted from the premises is by making appropriate proceeding before the concerned competent Civil Court. As regards the granting of compensation or rent for the period the State Government was on occupation of the said premises, this again is an issue which the appellant would have to raise before the concerned Civil Court. However, learned Single Judge, reserving the right of the appellant for availing such other remedies available to him under the law. 13. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the review petition bearing REVP No. 137 of 2022 before the learned Single Judge for seeking review of the order dated 20.07.2022 passed in WPC No. 2471 of 2014, whereby learned Single Judge held that all the grounds raised by the review petitioner were the grounds which were raised during the course of hearing of the writ petition and thereafter, the Court had disposed off the said writ petition, therefore, the said Bench was of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge had not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference in the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in REVP No. 137 of 2022. 14. Considering the pleadings made in the writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting 8 interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan