1 / 3 2026:CGHC:22132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 451 of 2021 Santoshi Sahu W/o Nilesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 6, B.D. Mahant Up Nagar, Janjgir, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Office At Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Estate Officer Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Korba Management Area, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Engineer Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Sub Division Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Sub Division Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.18 11:09:46 +0530 2 / 3 For Petitioner :Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For State/Resp. No.1 :Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No.2 to 5 :Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner is seeking compensation for illegal demolition of the construction raised by her on her own land. Respondent- Chhattisgarh Housing Board has demolished the construction treating it to be unauthorised construction. 2. The construction may be on encroached land or it might not have been constructed as per the applicable law. However, if either of the two is proved, Housing Board may not be held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 3. The question as to whether the petitioner had the lawful title over the land and the superstructure build thereupon, is a question which needs to be adjudicated by jurisdictional civil Court. 4. Similarly, the nature of construction as to whether it is authorized or unauthorized being contrary to the Municipal Laws, is again to be determined on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, this Court find itself unable to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this petition. The petitioner, if so 3 / 3 advised, may prefer duly constituted suit before the jurisdictional civil Court. 7. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/ Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen