1 2025:CGHC:56009-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 827 of 2025 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia S/o Sardar Ranjit Singh Bhatia, Aged About 60 Years R/o B-19, Ravi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh At The Instance Of District Collector, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Registered OfÏce At Sewree Fort Road, Near Sewree Station, Mumbai- 400015. 3 - M/s Gagan Fuels OfÏce Address At Power House, Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Aman Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.19 10:43:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18/11/2025 1. Heard Shri Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. 2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3266/2023, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The writ petitioner preferred the writ petition bearing WPC No. 3266/2023 and sought for the following reliefs:- "10.1 Issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent no. 2 to expedite the vacation of property of petitioner within limited time frame of 04 weeks. 10.2 Issue a writ of mandamus to respondent no. 1 to ensure vacation of property of petitioner and help him 3 secure its vacant possession as requested vide representation dated 03.02.2023. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted to the petitioner." 4. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that the petitioner Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, entered into a Lease Agreement with BPCL on 14.01.1998 for lease of the property situated at Kh. No. 704/5, 704/6, 704/7 in Torwa, Bilaspur of size 8,000 sq. ft. Under the said agreement the property was to be leased for a period of 25 years starting from 01.04.1997 till 31.03.2022. The said lease stood lapsed on 31.02.2022. BPCL wrote to petitioner on 14.10.2021 and 07.07.2022 to renew the lease since there was no renewal clause in the Lease Agreement. Petitioner, however, did not renew the lease and has rather categorically mentioned to BPCL on 02.12.2021, 28.01.2022, 23.03.2022 and 16.01.2023 that the petitioner will not renew the lease and has asked BPCL to vacate the parcel of land but to no avail. BPCL continues to occupy the Property illegally, committing trespass and has not handed over the vacant possession of the land despite almost one year since the lapse 4 of the lease on 31.03.2022. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by order impugned dismissed the writ petition holding that since there is statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner to file an application under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, 2011 before the Rent Control Authority. 6. The contention of the writ petitioner/appellant is that the respondent authorities without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective rejected the representation of the writ petitioner and they have not issued any instructions to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to vacate the land. The writ petitioner has been denied to access his property despite the lapse of lease amount. The BPCL being a governmental instrumentality failed to vacate the land of the petitioner. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has erroneously applied the doctrine of alternative remedy despite the clear finding that no landlord- tenant relationship exist between the parties. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the impugned order and would submit that the 5 learned Single Judge has rightly observed that there is a statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner to file a appropriate application before the Rent Control Authority. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and pleadings. 9. A bare perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the order impugned holding that the lease deed has already been expired in the year 2023 and the owner of the land i.e. the petitioner has not renewed and thereafter the Collector has passed the order. The learned Single Judge has also observed that there is a statutory alternative remedy under the Rent Control Act, 2011. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efÏcacious alternate remedy. 11. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not 6 be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 12. In light of the above submission and settled legal position, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ appeal, when an efÏcacious alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioner/appellant. 13. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 14. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib