1 / 3 2025:CGHC:49197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5131 of 2025 Ravi Nishad S/o Natthulal, Aged About 49 Years Caste - Kenwat, R/o Village Chandrapur, Tahsil Chandrapur, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Hari Nishad S/o Padumlal, Aged About 50 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Chandrapur, Ward No. 05, Bus Stand Chandrapur, Tahsil Chandrapur, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Rent Control Officer (Sub Divisional Officer), Dabhra, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 25/09/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29/08/2025 passed by Respondent No.3 in Revenue Case No.15/B-121/2024-25, E- Court No.202407310400020, Village Chandrapur, Tehsil ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.10.06 10:56:39 +0530 2 / 3 Chandrapur, District Sakti, C.G., whereby the application filed by the private respondent has been allowed and the direction has been issued to the Tahsildar Chandrapur and the concerned Police Authority to hand over the possession of the land bearing Khasra No.685/43, area 0.440 Hectare, situated in Ward No.5, Bus Stand Moholla, Village Chandrapur, P.H. No.21, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti, C.G. to Respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Private Respondent No.1 has illegally encroached upon the house and shop of the petitioner and no rent agreement has been executed in respect of the property in question. He would lastly contend that the petitioner is the registered owner of the Abadi land and constructed house and shop prior to 40 years, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order being illegal may be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the instant petition is not maintainable on account of the availability of the alternative remedy. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of the alternative remedy for filing appropriate appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal under C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 and the 3 / 3 petitioner, if so advise, may avail the same and may also raise all the objections therein. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu