1 2025:CGHC:2154-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 5 of 2025 1 - Bhagwan Lal Chandra S/o Awadhram Chandra Aged About 45 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhatmahul Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur District Sakti Chhattisgarh R/o Village Bhatmaahul, Tahsil Hasoud, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary, Department Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Po And P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 4 - Chandra Shekhar Jaiswal S/o Devprasad Jaisawl Aged About 35 Years Village - Bhatmaahul Thasil Jaijaipur District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, on behalf of Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 2 14/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State, Mr. Devesh G. Kela, appearing on behalf of Mr. Ramesh Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6083/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of in view of the availability of statutory remedy to approach before higher Revenue Authorities under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to law available to him. 3. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition and documents annexed thereto are that the petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhatmahul, District Sakti. In the meeting dated 15.10.2024 at Gram Panchayat Bhatmahul, District Sakti, a resolution has been passed for construction of Community Building at Old School Campus under DMF planning because the said school building was declared as dilapidated vide order dated 27.07.2023 by the SDO (R). On 04.11.2024 the respondent no.4 have made a complaint before the SDO (Revenue) Sakti alleging in it that the Sanpanch of the village Bhatmahul is raising construction of the Community Building at Government land bearing Khasra No. 461 & 472/1 which was the place where villagers are organizing Durgapuja, Navdha Ramayan, Marriage programme and other public programmes. On the complaint/respondent no.4, the SDO (Revenue) Sakti registered a Revenue Case No. 202410310300128/B-121/ 2024-25 and vide order dated 05.11.2024, he stayed the construction over the land in dispute. The SDO (Revenue) Sakti vide its memo dated 06.11.2024 called an inquiry report from the concerned Patwari and in compliance of that, the inquiry report was also submitted and considering the inquiry report and other materials, the SDO (Revenue) Sakti 3 vide its order dated 22.11.2024 rejected the complaint made by Chandrashekhar Jaiswal and vacated the stay order dated 05.11.2024. 4. On the next day another complaint was made by respondent no.4 Chandrashekher Jaiswal along with some other villagers to the Sub Divisional Officer on 26.11.2024, then again on 27.11.2024 the SDO (Revenue) Sakti again issued an order directing the parties to maintain status quo on the disputed land and stopped the construction work. It is mentioned in the stay order dated 27.11.2024 that the construction of the petitioner was going on over the land Khasra No. 461 & 472/1 which is the Government land and adjoining to the land Khasra No. 730 & 731 total area 0.158 hectare which owned by Uttra Kumar son of Dhularam and others. Since the SDO has already rejected the complaint and stay order has been vacated vide its order dated 22.11.2024, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the SDO (Revenue) Sakti dated 27.11.2024 by filing the present writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties have dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/writ appellant which is under challenge in the writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the SDO (Revenue) has acted in most arbitrary manner by passing the order dated 27.11.2024. Once he rejected the complaint of the respondent no.4, there was no occasion to again passing the order on his second complaint and instead of passing the order dated 27.11.2024, the SDO (Revenue) Sakti was required to direct the respondent no.4 to approach before the higher Revenue Authorities under the Land Revenue Code. Once the order has been passed by the SDO he has no jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent complaint on the same set of facts and his order is liable to be challenged by filing the appeal yet the SDO has passed the order of status quo. 6. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would also submit that the objection raised by the writ appellant have not considered and the SDO is not considering the objection raised by the petitioner that the land on which the construction is going on 4 is the land for public utility and the persons of the village were enjoying their Durgapuja, Navdha Ramayan, Marriage programme and other public programmes, therefore, the bar of statutory alternative remedy is not applicable in the present case, yet the writ petition filed by the petitioner/writ appellant has been dismissed, in which the interference of this Court is required. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 44 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, the writ appellant is having alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order by filing the appropriate appeal before the competent Court and the disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, order passed by learned Single Judge is not required to interfere with. 8. We have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it reflects that the petitioner/writ appellant has challenged the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by SDO (Revenue) Sakti in Revenue Case No. 202410310300129/ B-121/2024-25 granting interim order in favour of the respondent no.4 and directed the parties to maintain the status quo. The order passed by SDO is appealable under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, by filing the appropriate appeal/revision before the competent Revenue Authority. Whether or not the construction was going on over the Government land or any private land and whether there is any encroachment or not over any land of any of the parties are the disputed question of fact which are to be decided in appropriate proceeding before the competent Court, but certainly not in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ appellant is having efficacious statutory remedy under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and liberty was granted to him to take recourse to law available to him. 5 10. After considering the entire material placed in the writ petition and the pleadings, we do not find any good ground to interefere with the impugned order. Even otherwise no palpable infirmities have been shown by the writ appellant to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In the result the writ appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21 10:22:25 +0530