1 CGHC010204032026 2026:CGHC:31378-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 593 of 2026 1 - Divisional Railwary Manager South Eastern Central Railway D R M Complex, Bilaspur Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Station Master Bhupdevpur Railway Station Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Appellants versus 1 - Badrivishal Gupta S/o Ramjee Lal Gupta Aged About 79 Years R/o House No 25/b Bhupdevpur Tahsil Kharsiya Dist- G P M (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Nand Kishor Gupta S/o Shri Badrivishal Gupta Agea About 42 Years R/o Housing Board Colony Q. No.H/1-02, Pendra Dist- G P M (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Revenue And Disaster Management Secretariat At Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Raigarh Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsiya Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Kharsiya Tahsil- Kharsiya Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondents WA No. 677 of 2026 Badrivishal Gupta S/o Ramjee Lal Gupta Aged About 79 Years R/o House No. 25/b Bhupdevpur, Tahsil Kharsiya Distt. G.P.M. Chhattisgarh Through Power of Attorney Holder Nand Kishor Gupta S/o Shri Badrivishal Gupta, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Housing Board Colony, Q. No. H/1-02, Pendra, Distt. Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh ---Appellant ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Secretariat At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Railway Manager South Eastern Central Railway, D R M Complex, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Station Master Bhupdevpur Railway Station, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Tahsildar, Kharsiya Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant in WA No. 593/2026 and respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WA No. 677/2026 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Appellant in WA No. 677/2026 and respondent No.1 in WA No. 593/2026 : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/State in both the appeals : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23 .0 7 .202 6 1. Since both these appeals arise out of similar impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for appellant in WA No. 593/2026 and respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WA 3 No. 677/2026 and Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for appellant in WA No. 677/2026 and respondent No.1 in WA No.593/2026. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondents. 3. I.A. No.01/2026, is an application filed in WA No. 677/2026 for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the said appeal. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2026 filed in WA No. 677/2026 for condonation of delay of 10 days, the same is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 5. By way of present writ appeals filed under Section 2 of Sub- Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant/Railways (respondent No.2 & 3 in writ petition) i.e. WA No. 593/2026 as well as the appellant / writ petitioner i.e. WA No. 677/2026 have challenged the impugned order dated 13.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1674 of 2026 (Badrivishal Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant in WA No. 677/2026 has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 6. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of both these appeals, are as follows : 7. The writ petitioner (appellant in WA No. 677/2026) has preferred this writ petition i.e. WPC No. 1674 of 2026 before this Court 4 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari/ prohibition/ mandamus, thereby to quash the impugned order dated 16-03-2026 passed by Res no 2 DRM SECR Bilaspur, after declaring it unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary. 10.3 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to compensate petitioner after fair assessment for actual loss caused by railway/its agency to petitioner's land bearing khasra no 12/1 area 1.400 hectare with applicable interest on it, and further to pass any order which deems fit including cost of the petition in the interest of Justice.” 8. The contention of the petitioner was that his private land bearing khasra No. 12/1 area 1.40 hectare was encroached by the Railway Authorities and misused the same by keeping cemented sleepers and other heavy machinery/Railway material for about 8-10 years, therefore, his land became infertile and its productivity was adversely affected. Though learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3/Railway sought time to file reply, but Annexure P-1, order of rejecting representation of the petitioner seeking compensation, shows that said land of the petitioner was encroached by the Railway Authority by keeping their Railway 5 material, sleepers, ballast etc. However, it has mentioned in Annexure P-1 that now the land was vacated on 07.11.2025, meaning thereby that the Railway Authority have admitted that said land was used by them. Revenue Inspector has also submitted a report to the Collector (Annexure P-4) stating that said land of petitioner was misused by Railway Authority for aforesaid purpose for 8-10 years, this fact also finds support from resolution Annexure P-8 dated 30.03.206 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Bhupdevpur. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and documents, particularly the admission of respondent No.2 & 3 in Annexure P-1, it is evident that said land of the petitioner has been used by the Railway Authorities. 9. It was also not disputed that the prolonged storage of cemented sleepers, railway materials, and ballast on agricultural land adversely affects its fertility and have changed productivity of the soil. In order to restore the land to a cultivable condition, the petitioner incurred expenses by engaging JCB machinery, for which he has placed bills on record, i.e. Annexure P-7 dated 17.02.2026 amounting to Rs. 1,14,950/- and another bill dated 27.02.2026 amounting to Rs. 95,040/-. Though the period of alleged misuse of the said land for 8-10 years is a disputed fact, which can be ascertained after evidence, but the expenditure incurred to the petitioner towards restoration of the land can be compensated in instant-petition, therefore, instead of keeping the said writ petition pending and granting time to file reply to the 6 respondents, the same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.04.2026 to the extent of aforesaid bill amount, directing respondents No.2 and 3 to pay aforesaid bill amount of Rs. 1,14,950/- dated 17.02.2026 and bill amount of Rs.95,040/- dated 27.02.2026 to the petitioner, within 45 days' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, liberty was left with the petitioner to take recourse to law by filing civil suit, for any further compensation against the loss suffered by him, for the said period, if so advised. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, WA No. 593/2026 has been filed by the appellants/Railways and WA No. 677/2026 has been filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner. 11. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant / Railways in WA No. 593 of 2026 would submit that the learned Single Judge exceeded the permissible jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by awarding monetary compensation on the basis of disputed questions of fact. It is contended that the alleged period of unauthorized use of the land, the extent of damage caused to the agricultural land, and the actual expenditure incurred by the writ petitioner were all disputed issues requiring oral and documentary evidence, which could only be adjudicated by a competent civil court. It is further submitted that the bills produced by the petitioner were unilateral documents and were never verified by the respondents. The learned Single Judge, without 7 affording adequate opportunity to the Railways to file a detailed reply or contest the authenticity of the bills, directed payment of the said amounts, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is argued that once the Court itself recorded that the claim regarding misuse of land for 8–10 years was a disputed question of fact, there was no justification for granting any monetary relief in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order directing payment of Rs.1,14,950/- and Rs.95,040/- be set aside. 12. Per contra, Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No. 677/2026 /writ petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in restricting the relief only to reimbursement of the restoration expenses. It is argued that the unauthorized occupation and use of the petitioner's agricultural land by the Railway Authorities for nearly 8–10 years stood established from the order rejecting the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-1), the report of the Revenue Inspector (Annexure P-4), and the resolution of the Gram Panchayat (Annexure P-8). He further submitted that the Railways themselves admitted that the land remained under their occupation and was vacated only on 07.11.2025. It is also submitted that prolonged storage of cement sleepers, ballast and heavy railway materials rendered the land infertile and substantially diminished its agricultural productivity, causing continuous financial loss to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have awarded 8 compensation towards loss of agricultural income, deterioration of soil fertility, and illegal deprivation of the petitioner's use and enjoyment of the land, instead of relegating him to institute a civil suit. It is thus prayed that the impugned order be modified by awarding adequate compensation for the entire period of illegal occupation and consequential losses. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. 14. The fact that the land belonging to the writ petitioner was utilized by the Railway Authorities for storing railway materials, cement sleepers and ballast is borne out from Annexure P-1 itself, wherein it has been acknowledged that the land was vacated on 07.11.2025. The report of the Revenue Inspector (Annexure P-4) as well as the resolution of the Gram Panchayat (Annexure P-8) also support the petitioner's case regarding use of the land by the Railways. Thus, the unauthorized use of the petitioner's land by the Railway Authorities cannot be said to be in serious dispute. 15. So far as the appeal preferred by the Railways is concerned, the learned Single Judge has awarded only the actual expenditure incurred by the petitioner for restoration of the land, supported by the bills placed on record. The said relief is in the nature of reimbursement of expenses necessarily incurred to restore the land to a cultivable condition after the Railways vacated the same. Having regard to the admitted use of the land by the 9 Railway Authorities, we find no illegality or perversity in the direction requiring the Railways to reimburse the restoration expenses. The limited monetary relief granted by the learned Single Judge neither amounts to adjudication of disputed claims nor forecloses the rights of the parties regarding any larger claim for compensation. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Railways is devoid of merit. 16. Similarly, the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner also does not merit acceptance. The claim relating to compensation for alleged loss of agricultural income, deterioration of fertility, and damages for unauthorized occupation extending over 8–10 years necessarily involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact, including the exact duration of occupation, the extent of loss suffered, the fertility of the land before and after such occupation, and assessment of consequential damages. Such issues require leading of oral and documentary evidence and cannot appropriately be determined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to pursue an appropriate civil remedy for claiming any further compensation in accordance with law. We find no error in adopting such a course. 17. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has struck a just and equitable balance by directing reimbursement of the restoration expenses while leaving the 10 larger claim for damages to be adjudicated before the competent civil forum. The impugned order does not warrant interference. 18. Resultantly, both Writ Appeal No. 593 of 2026 preferred by the Railway Authorities and Writ Appeal No. 677 of 2026 preferred by the writ petitioner are dismissed. The impugned order dated 13.04.2026 is affirmed. The liberty granted to the writ petitioner to seek any further compensation by instituting appropriate civil proceedings shall remain unaffected. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra