1 CGHC010107532025 2026:CGHC:36952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1507 of 2025 Smt. Chanchla Singh W/o Abhishek Singh Aged About 31 Years By Cast- Kshatriya, R/o Urja Nagar, Jarhi, Tahsil - Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Filed Limited (Secl) Through General Manager, Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - South Eastern Coalfields Filed Limited (Secl) Through Mine Manager, Mahamaya Open Mines Project Bhatgaon Area, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Nodal Officer (Land Revenue) Bhatgaon Area Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Collector/land Acquisitionn Officer Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Omkar Singh S/o R.V. Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Jarhi, Bhatgaon, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, PL For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate For respondent No. 6 : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 That, this Hon’ble may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities conduct fair enquiry about ownership of the acquired house of the petitioner and till decision of the dispute ownership of the house the compensation not be paid to the respondent No.6. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to stop the payment of compensation amount for the house built by the petitioner till the final resolution of the dispute arising in connection with the disputed house. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition. 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without deciding the petitioner’s claim regarding the disputed house are proceeding to disburse the compensation amount to respondent No. 6, who has no lawful entitlement thereto. The petitioner has already received compensation for the land on which the house was constructed; however, the compensation for the house has wrongly been awarded in favour of respondent No. 6. The petitioner submits that on 13.01.2025, she visited the site and came to know that her house was being demolished. Respondent No. 6 informed her that since she had left the house, the compensation had been sanctioned in his name and would not be paid to her. Thus, there is a bona fide dispute regarding entitlement to the compensation for the house. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be restrained from disbursing the compensation amount in respect of the disputed house to respondent No. 6 until the petitioner’s claim is finally adjudicated, failing which the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 3. From the perusal of the dispute between the parties, as emerged from the petition as well as the return filed by the concerned respondents, it appears that there are disputed questions of fact with regard to the entitlement, share and other rights in respect of the property in question. The petitioner is claiming that she is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the land in dispute, whereas respondent No. 6, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner, is claiming that he is entitled to receive the 4 compensation in respect of the entire share of the property. On the other hand, the petitioner submits that respondent No. 6 has no right, title or entitlement over the disputed property or the compensation amount payable in respect thereof. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the disputed questions of fact with regard to the entitlement, share, title and other rights of the parties in respect of the property in question, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties to the competent civil jurisdictional Court. Such disputed questions relating to title, share and entitlement cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the parties would be required to establish their respective rights and claims before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate civil remedy before the competent Court in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respective claims of the parties. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL