1 2025:CGHC:58498-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 874 of 2025 Shri Amar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal, R/o Mahapali Road, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - M/s Mahavir Energy And Coal Benefication Private Limited A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Mahavir Coal Corporation, 216, Shankar Nagar, Behind Park, Nagpur, Maharashtra, Through Its Director, Shri Upkar Rai, S/o Late Shri Krishnanand Rai, Aged About 32 Years, R/o R-8/19, Rama Valley, Raipur Road, Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Magistrate District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.12 .2025 1. Though the matter has been listed under the heading of For Orders (On Office Notes) as there are so may defects pointed out by the Registry including that the days of delay has wrongly been mentioned in the delay application. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.03 15:13:16 +0530 2 2. Considering the nature of the controversy involved, the period of pendency, and since both parties are represented before this Court, we deem it appropriate to decide the writ appeal on merits. 3. Heard Mr. Rishabh Bisen, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for State/respondents on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 45 days in preferring the appeal. 4. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 45 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 5. By way of this writ appeal, appellant/writ petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16/07/2025, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3172/2016. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the Appellant against the respondents.” 6. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.3172/2016 (M/s Mahavir Energy and Coal Benefication Private Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh and another) 3 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been disposed of. 7. Brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, were that the appellant/writ petitioner had established a 12 MW biomass-fuel-based power plant at Village Bhengari, Post Office Navapara, Tenda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. The electricity generated from the said plant was to be supplied to the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). 8. In relation to the disputed land, it was the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that one Shri Naresh Agrawal had accepted a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which had been paid by the appellant/writ petitioner pursuant to execution of an agreement. Thereafter, the entire transmission line had been laid and duly commissioned, and the power plant had commenced commercial production on 09.11.2009. The transmission line also stood energized. 9. It was further alleged that after a lapse of nearly three years from the erection of the tower, respondent No.1 had, on 10.12.2012, preferred an application before the District Magistrate, Raigarh (respondent No.2), alleging that the appellant/writ petitioner had erected an electricity tower on his land without consent and without payment of compensation. Respondent No.2, vide order 4 dated 23.12.2013, rejected the said application, directing instead that adequate compensation be paid to respondent No.1. 10. Pursuant thereto, the appellant/writ petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.48,000/- by cheque on 13.02.2014 before the SDO (Revenue), Gharghoda, towards compensation assessed as payable to respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1, vide communication dated 20.02.2014, informed the SDO (Revenue) that he had preferred a revision before the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and therefore declined to accept the said compensation. The Regulatory Commission, vide order dated 09.10.2014, remitted the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh consideration. 11. Subsequently, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings afresh and ultimately, vide order dated 07.11.2016, held that the tower had been erected on the land of respondent No.1 without his consent and directed its removal. 12. It was the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that the towers had been erected only after obtaining due permission from the competent authorities and after payment of adequate compensation to Shri Naresh Agrawal, who was the uncle of respondent No.1 and who had accepted the amount on behalf of respondent No.1. It was contended that respondent No.1 had not raised any objection for more than three years while the lines were being laid and the transmission had commenced. Even as 5 per the applicable Rules, respondent No.1 was only entitled to adequate compensation, and despite the appellant/writ petitioner having already paid Rs.1,00,000/- to his uncle and subsequently depositing the assessed amount of Rs.48,000/- before the SDO (Revenue), the respondent No.1 refused to accept the same. Nevertheless, respondent No.2, by order dated 07.11.2016, directed that the overhead line be removed. 13. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) No.3172/2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2025. 14. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.3172/2016, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 15. Mr. Rishabh Bisen, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order without adjudicating the matter on merits, which is unlawful. He submits that the appellant/writ petitioner’s detailed para-wise reply has not been considered. In particular, the appellant/writ petitioner clarifies that he never claimed ownership over land bearing Khasra No. 327/3; it was purchased by his late father, Late Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal, who was the sole owner at the time of the tower’s erection, and the appellant/writ petitioner is 6 now the sole owner and title holder. The alleged settlement with Shri Naresh Agrawal, who had no authority or representation, and the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- purportedly made to him, are wholly unauthorised and illegal. The Annexure P-5 agreement itself reflects fabrication, overwriting, missing witness details, and incomplete stamp paper particulars, demonstrating malice and lack of bona fides. 16. Mr. Bisen submits that the impugned order ought to have been quashed on merits. However, the Single Judge quashed it solely on the ground of an alternative remedy, which is a clear error of law. Finally, it is submitted that no consent or written no-objection was ever obtained from the appellant/writ petitioner or his father prior to erection of the tower, a fact ignored in the impugned judgment, and this vital aspect requires consideration. As such, the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 17. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents, submits that the impugned order is valid and passed in accordance with law. He contends that the appellant/writ petitioner has failed to establish any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings before the District Magistrate. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities acted within their jurisdiction, and all relevant facts, including the non-consent of the landowner and compliance with 7 applicable rules, were duly considered. Therefore, there is no ground for interference with the impugned order. 18. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.3172/2016. 19. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “6. From perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record by the petitioner as well as by respondent No.1, it is quite vivid that the inter se dispute of title of the property is involved in this case which can be very well adjudicated by the competent court having jurisdiction to decide the dispute and even otherwise no fundamental right of the respondent No.1 is adversely affected. 7. Accordingly, impugned order dated 7-11- 2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside and this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the respondent No.1 to file a civil suit before the appropriate forum, if so advised, for declaration of title over the land where the tower has been erected. 8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any also stand disposed of.” 8 20. The core issue in the present appeal pertains to the ownership and title of the land on which the electricity tower was erected by the appellant/writ petitioner. 21. It is evident that the learned Single Judge has examined the pleadings and material on record and correctly observed that the dispute regarding inter se title of the property is essentially a civil dispute. Such disputes are triable by the competent civil courts having jurisdiction and cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ jurisdiction is not intended to decide questions of ownership or title where an adequate alternative remedy is available to the parties, which, in the present case, is a civil suit. 22. The appellant/writ petitioner has raised contentions regarding the settlement with Shri Naresh Agrawal and the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards alleged compensation. While these allegations are noted, they primarily concern factual and evidentiary issues related to ownership and authority to receive compensation. These matters are intertwined with the question of title and property rights, which are beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has appropriately declined to interfere and has granted liberty to respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings before a civil court for declaration of title, thereby ensuring that the legal rights of all parties are preserved. 23. Further, the appellant/writ petitioner’s plea that the impugned 9 order was passed without considering his para-wise reply and submissions does not alter the fact that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to preempt the proper forum for adjudication of property disputes. The procedural aspects or alleged irregularities in the settlement cannot transform a civil dispute into a matter maintainable under writ jurisdiction. 24. Considering the above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has acted within the scope of law, and no illegality or error has been committed warranting interference. The alternative remedy of filing a civil suit remains available to the appellant/writ petitioner, and the impugned order does not curtail any fundamental rights of the appellant/writ petitioner. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.3172/2016 is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu