1 CGHC010256492026 2026:CGHC:28379 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3545 of 2026 1 - Sudhindra Das Vaishnav S/o Shri Ganesh Das Vaishnav, Aged About 45 Years R/o Madhuban Para, Raigarh, Tehsil, And District Raigarh C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. 2 - The Society Manager, District Society Department, District Office Raigarh C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a paddy procurement centre has been temporarily established over the petitioner's private land without any authority of law. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation before the concerned Collector seeking removal of the said procurement VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 centre and restoration of possession of the land. It is further submitted that the Collector, instead of examining the petitioner's grievance on merits, rejected the representation by observing that since the paddy procurement centre has already instituted a civil suit against the petitioner, the petitioner may contest the said civil suit and avail the remedies available under law. Learned counsel submits that the Collector has failed to consider the petitioner's grievance in its proper perspective. It is contended that the land in question is the petitioner's private property and no authority can occupy or encroach upon the same except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Therefore, the action of permitting the establishment of the paddy procurement centre over the petitioner's land is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to protect the petitioner's lawful possession and to remove the unauthorized occupation from the petitioner's land in accordance with law. 2. Learned State counsel submits that since a civil litigation in respect of the subject matter is already pending consideration before the competent Civil Court, no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Collector is an appealable/revisable order before the competent authority, namely, the Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the relevant provisions of law. Learned State 3 counsel further submits that, in view of the availability of the statutory remedy and pendency of the civil proceedings, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature and is not liable to be entertained by this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available before the competent authority. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the learned Collector is appealable/revisable before the competent authority. 5. Accordingly, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Collector, he is at liberty to prefer an appropriate appeal/revision/application before the competent authority, which shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 6. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge vishakha