1 CGHC010248932026 2026:CGHC:30330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3453 of 2026 1 - Chintaram Sahu S/o Shri Jhaduram Sahu aged about 60 Years R/o Village Paneka, Tahsil Pipariya District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector, Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev), Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kawardh District- Kabirdham (C.G.). 5 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Paneka, Tahsil Pipariya District- Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate. For State/respondents : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 17/07/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the learned Collector, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, rejecting the petitioner's representation without considering the material available on record and without adhering to the directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 08.10.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the learned Collector, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh is arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that respondent No. 5 has illegally encroached upon the nistari road leading to the petitioner's house and has commenced construction of a staircase thereon. Despite several complaints and representations submitted by the petitioner, the concerned authorities have failed to take any action for removal of the alleged encroachment or to prevent the unauthorized construction. It is further submitted that if respondent No. 5 is permitted to complete the construction over the nistari road, the petitioner's access to his house would be obstructed, thereby causing serious prejudice to him. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the same has been passed after due consideration of the relevant facts by the competent authority in accordance with law, and no interference by this Court is warranted in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered 3 the impugned order and the material available on record, this Court finds that the competent authority has duly examined the matter and recorded a specific finding that the proposed construction of the Rangmanch stage would not cause any hindrance to the petitioner. The authority has conducted the requisite enquiry before passing the impugned order. In the absence of any patent illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the decision-making process, no ground for interference is made out in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju