1 2026:CGHC:25570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3017 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Tiwari S/o Late Chandra Shekhar Tiwari Aged About 55 Years Occupation- Priest (Purohit), R/o Village- Namadgiri, Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Madan Sarathi President, Ghasi Samaj, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23.06.2026 2 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the arbitrary, illegal and unjust action/order of respondent No. 4 (Tahsildar, Surajpur), whereby land bearing Khasra No. 1248/6 situated at Village Namdagiri, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), which is recorded in the name of the State Government but has been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the petitioner and his forefathers for decades, has been reclassified as Khasra No. 1248/7 and thereafter allotted in favour of respondent No. 5 Madan Sarathi, President, Ghasi Samaj, and further portions of the said land are being allotted to other persons belonging to different communities. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner’s grandfather Late Lakhpat Brahmin was in initial occupation and cultivation of a portion of the said land and remained in peaceful possession thereof during his lifetime. After his demise, the petitioner’s father Late Chandrashekhar continued cultivation and possession over the said land, and thereafter upon his death, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and cultivation of the same for his livelihood. The said possession is long-standing, continuous, and well within the knowledge of the revenue authorities. It is further submitted that earlier proceedings were also initiated before the Court of Tahsildar, Surajpur in Case No. A/68, wherein the petitioner’s father was penalized, which itself indicates the existence of possession and cultivation over the said land. Originally Khasra No. 1248 has been partitioned into seven parts, 3 and after such bifurcation the petitioner has been in possession over Khasra No. 1248/6. However, without issuing any notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing, and in complete violation of principles of natural justice, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily altered the revenue records and proceeded to allot the said land to third parties. The impugned action of the respondents is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it deprives the petitioner of his possessory rights and livelihood without following due process of law, thereby causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner and his family. It is further submitted that substantial land bearing Khasra No. 1248/1 admeasuring approximately 6.1100 hectares is still available in the name of the State Government, yet the authorities have selectively proceeded to disturb and dispossess the petitioner from the land under his long-standing possession. The present writ petition, therefore, pertains to illegal allotment and arbitrary dispossession of the petitioner from the land under his continuous possession without due process of law, and the petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate reliefs including quashing of the impugned allotment and protection of his possession. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned action/order passed by 4 Respondent No. 4 (Tehsildar, Surajpur) whereby the land bearing Khasra No. 1248/6, under the possession and cultivation of the Petitioner, has been recorded as Khasra No. 1248/7 and allotted to private persons; 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to not dispossess the Petitioner from the land in question without following due process of law and without affording an opportunity of hearing; 10.3 Direct the Respondents to consider and regularize the possession of the Petitioner over the land bearing Khasra No. 1248/6, in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and principles governing long-standing possession and livelihood; 10.4 Grant an interim relief by staying the operation and implementation of the impugned allotment order and restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and cultivation of the Petitioner over the said land; 10.5 Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file an appropriate application/representation before the competent authority, as it is submitted that the petitioner is in 5 occupation of the subject land since the last three decades. The prayer is accordingly granted, with liberty reserved in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner does not have any enforceable right in respect of the claim raised; however, it is submitted that in the event the petitioner submits any application/representation, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the limited grievance raised in the present petition, this Court is of the opinion that no further adjudication is required at this stage. The petitioner has already been granted liberty to submit an application/representation before the competent authority, and the State has fairly submitted that, in the event any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority within a reasonable time, and upon receipt thereof, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. 6 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha