1 CGHC010261452026 2026:CGHC:28828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3589 of 2026 1 - Neelam Sanjeev Aadil S/o Ashwani Kumar Aadil Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Neurdih, Tehsil- Dharsiva, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Administration And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector- Raipur District- Raipur, C.G. 3 - Office Of Naib Tehsildar Sub Tehsil- Saragaon, District- Raipur, C.G. 4 - Shrimati Savita Chandrakar District Panchayat Member, Raipur And President, District Panchayat, Raipur, R/o Gram Panchayat Neurdih, Tehsil- Dharsiva, District- Raipur, C.G. 5 - Shrimati Parwati Banjare Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Neurdih, Vikaskhand- Dharsiva, District- Raipur, C.G., R/o Village- Neurdih, Tehsil- Dharsiva, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 1/7/26, impugned dispossession warrant dated 1/7/26 in the interest of justice. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and in case the petitioner house is demolished, then appropriate compensation shall be paid to the petitioner and grant compensation to the petitioner regarding destruction of their boundary wall in illegal manner. 10.3) This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent– Naib Tahsildar has passed an order dated 01.07.2026 against the 3 petitioner. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the said order, the concerned Naib Tahsildar, on the very same day, issued a notice directing removal of the alleged encroachment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order as well as the consequential notice, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has an efficacious and adequate alternative statutory remedy available under the relevant provisions of law by way of an appeal against the order dated 01.07.2026. It is contended that without exhausting the said statutory remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, which is not maintainable in law. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner be relegated to avail the alternative remedy available under the statute. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the order dated 01.07.2026. In view of the settled legal position that where an effective alternative remedy is available, this Court ordinarily refrains from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is relegated to avail the said remedy. 4 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent appellate authority against the order dated 01.07.2026 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event such an appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 6. It is further directed that for a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the concerned respondents authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order and the consequential notice, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat