1 2025:CGHC:61786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6627 of 2025 1 - Chait Ram Sahu S/o Late Runaram Sahu Aged About 73 Years R/o Lal Bahgadur Shastri Ward Patpar, Bhatapara Police Station Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Chaitram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward Patpar, Bhatapara Police Station Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Durgesh Nandani W/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward Patpar, Bhatapara Police Station Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Mohd Bashir Hingora S/o Late Abdul Dadar Hingora Aged About 54 Years R/o Sadar Ward Bharapara P.S. Bhatapara District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Roshan Mishra S/o Shri Arun Mishra Aged About 39 Years R/o Sant Kanwar Ram Ward Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan (Mandi) Board Through Its Managing Director, Mandi Board Bhawan, Sector-24, Atal Nagar Nawa, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Through Its Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.22 12:45:39 +0530 2 5 - The Collector District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Bhatapara District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Bhatapara District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 8 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bhatapara Through Its Secretary, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1, 2, 5 to 7 : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.3 and 8 : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Yashwant Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ / order / direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to produce the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant petition. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ / order / direction, directing the Respondents No. 05, 06 & 07 to hold such enquiry as is contemplated under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for determination of the Petitioners' right of way. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ / order / direction, directing the Respondent authorities to confer right of way / access to the Petitioners and further restrain the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioners right of way /access by raising any construction over the subject land. 3 10.4 Any other relief (s), direction (s), which Hon’ble Court deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, perusal of the order Annexure P-1 would show that petitioners have earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No. 5315 of 2024 raising the same grievance that petitioners were not having road to excess their agricultural field which was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2025. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that from perusal of the contents of the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in WPC No. 5315 of 2025, it is prima-facie appearing that this writ petition was disposed of based on the submission made by learned counsel for respondents that petitioners are having approach road of 35 ft. vide, however, there is no approach road for petitioners for entering into their agricultural field. 4. In the aforementioned facts of the case in the opinion of this Court when once the petitioners have filed writ petition seeking the same grievance which was disposed of after hearing both the sides, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition afresh considering the same grievance. If for any reason, petitioners are aggrieved with the action on the part of the respondents, then the petitioners may file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum as available under law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram