1 2026:CGHC:24222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2610 of 2026 1 - Johat Ram Sahu S/o Dhelu Aged About 71 Years R/o Sirri, Kulhadi, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tahsildar Sirri Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kulhadi, Block Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Kulhadi, Block Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17.06.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the alleged illegal and arbitrary action of respondent No. 4, whereby it is stated that on 10.04.2026, the house of the petitioner situated over the alleged Government land was demolished without issuing any prior notice or following due process of law. The petitioner seeks appropriate relief on the ground that such demolition action is violative of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner claims to be in possession over Government land bearing Khasra No. 447/1, admeasuring 8.0825 hectares (out of which 0.10 hectare is claimed to be in possession), situated at Village Kulhadi, P.H. No. 37, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari. It is the case of the petitioner that he has constructed a house and garden over the said land and has been residing therein along with his family since the year 1992. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has been paying accommodation tax to the Gram Panchayat and has been in peaceful possession for more than three decades. It is alleged that on 10.04.2026, respondent No. 4, without issuing any notice or following due procedure, demolished the house of the petitioner. It is further alleged that respondent No. 4 has also demanded illegal gratification and has threatened the petitioner with dispossession. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon certain photographs of the demolished structure. 3 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to take action against the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent no. 4. 10.3) That, the Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to make an appropriate writ order and give compensation of 5 lakh rupees for the damages. 10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No. 4 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to demolition of the house. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in settled possession over the land for a long period and even otherwise, no coercive action could have been taken without following due process of law. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit in respect of the subject land, which is pending consideration before the competent civil Court. 4 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner has no legal right, title or authority over Government land. It is submitted that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant over Government land and appropriate action has been taken by the competent authority in accordance with law for removal of encroachment. It is further submitted that mere long possession, if any, does not confer any legal right upon the petitioner to retain Government land. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has already approached the civil court and the dispute involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The limited question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, who claims possession over Government land, can seek interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the action of removal of alleged encroachment, particularly when disputed questions of fact are involved and civil proceedings are already pending between the parties. 8. Upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions made, it is evident that the petitioner claims long possession over Government land, whereas the respondents dispute the legality of such possession. The issue relating to entitlement, possession and alleged encroachment over Government land involves 5 disputed questions of fact, which require detailed evidence and adjudication. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit in respect of the subject matter, which is pending before the competent civil Court. 9. In view of the settled legal position that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked in matters involving disputed questions of fact, particularly where efficacious alternative remedy in civil law is already availed, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter. However, it is made clear that any action of the State authorities must be in accordance with law and due process, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue his remedy before the competent civil Court. 10. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. 12. It is further clarified that any observation made herein shall not influence the pending civil proceedings between the parties, which shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by this order. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha