1 2026:CGHC:5301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 406 of 2026 Yashwant Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Shant Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Sarwani Tahsil- And P.S. Kharsia Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsia Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar Kharsia Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Nayab Tahsildar Kharsia Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - The Manager Aadimjati Sewa Sahkari Samiti T.S.S. Bargarh Tah- Kharsia Distt- Raigarh, (C.G.) 6 - Satyanarayan Agrawal S/o Late Ramlal Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Dabhara Road Kharsia Tah. Kharsia Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respond. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer. 2 {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 30/01/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire of the petitioner’s case. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quashed the order 12.01.2026 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Sub Divisional Officer, Kharsiya (Annexure P-1) 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the application fresh for grant permission to sell the paddy crops in the registered society in the present seasons. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed, 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pertaining to the subject land civil suit bearing No. 4-A/10 was filed by one Basant Kumar ( brother of the petitioner’s father) before Civil Judge, Class-II, Kharsia, District Raigarh. Counter case was also filed by petitioner’s father. In the aforesaid civil suit, respondent’s No. 6 father & mother, Ramlal & Savitri Devi were defendants. It is next contended that, the said civil suit as well as counter claim have been dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 12.03.2025, against which first appeal is pending before District Judge, Raigarh. 3 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is not aware about the registration number of the aforesaid first appeal. He further submits the petitioner is still in possession over the subject land and also cultivating the same since the time of his ancestors, despite that he is not being permitted to sell the paddy crop in concerned Paddy Procurement Centre/ Society, hence, he prays that this case may be admitted for hearing. 4. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, first civil appel is already pending before District Judge, Raigarh and civil suit as well as counter claim filed by the plaintiff (brother of the petitioner’s father) and petitioner’s father, respectively have been dismissed. Therefore, if petitioner wants to avail any remedy pertaining to the sell of paddy produced from subject land, he may file appropriate application before concerned first appellate Court for redressal of his grievances. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 6. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.02.04 13:03:32 +0530