1 CGHC010148482023 2026:CGHC:36053 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2083 of 2023 Sandeep Mahobia S/o Bihari Ram Mahobia Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Chhuikhadan, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For the Petitioner :Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, RV Ram Rajwade, Advocate For the State For the Municipal Corporation : : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. SS Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities to restrain them from carrying out any 2 alleged illegal construction of bore and drain over the petitioner’s private land. The petitioner has further sought a direction to the respondent-authorities for payment of appropriate compensation in respect of the road allegedly constructed over his private land bearing Khasra No. 198, admeasuring 0.405 hectare, situated at Village Chhuikhadan, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent-authorities have constructed a road over the land belonging to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation in respect of the land utilized for construction of said road. It is, accordingly, prayed that the concerned respondent-authorities be directed to determine and pay the compensation payable to the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Municipal Corporation submits that the factual position projected by the petitioner is not correct. The road in question has been constructed over an existing/old road and that the petitioner was well aware of the said fact/position. The land belonging to the petitioner has neither been acquired nor taken into possession or utilized by the respondent-authorities for construction of the road. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation and no relief can be granted in his favour. 3 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the State is merely a formal party to the present proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the pleadings and material available on record. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, relief sought for by the petitioner and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the land of the petitioner has never been taken or used for construction of road, hence, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.