1 / 3 2025:CGHC:53928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1134 of 2022 Dilip Gandhi S/o Rameshwar Gandhi, Caste- Ganda, Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Aamgaon, Tahsil-Farasgaon, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest And Climatologically Diversion Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Divisional Forest Officer Keshkal Forest Division, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Range Officer, Badedonger Forest Circle, District-Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District- Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station -Urandabeda, District- Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For proposed Intervenors : Ms. Sejal Makkad, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.07 17:52:09 +0530 2 / 3 04/11/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 . That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call the records from the Court below. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to provide compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs forthwith for demolishing the shop of petitioner. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent No.1 to take disciplinary action against the erring officer for demolishing the shop of petitioner. 10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given. ” 2. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is pressing the relief 10.2 of this writ petition for grant of compensation against demolition of his shop wherein goods were also kept/stored for purpose of sale. 3. Mr. Satish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the relief which is prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted as the relief of compensation can be considered only after the evidence is produced by respective parties by both the sides and, therefore, claim of compensation can be decided by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 4. Ms. Sejal Makkad, learned counsel appearing for proposed intervenors 3 / 3 submits that she has been consulted by Rameshwar and Panchram to file application for intervention and she has also filed ‘vakalatnama’ yesterday. However, till date, application for intervention has not been filed. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. As the thrust of the petitioner in this writ petition is mainly for grant of compensation against so called loss suffered by him in demolition of shop run by him, in the opinion of this Court, relief of compensation of Rs.20 lakhs as claimed by the petitioner can only be granted by proving the case and value of loss suffered by him, in an appropriate proceedings by leading oral and documentary evidence in support of claim, which cannot be gone into and decided in the proceedings of writ petition. 7. For the foregoing discussions, relief of compensation as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. However, liberty is reserved with petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen