1 CGHC010063812023 2026:CGHC:38407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 992 of 2023 1 - Govind Singh Bhadoriya S/o Ram Mohan Bhadoriya Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Nakulnar, Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manohar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to make an direct the respondent order/direction authorities to provide the equal value land to the petitioner which has been acquired. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioners together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may kindly be granted liberty to avail the appropriate alternative remedy by filing an appeal/revision before the competent authority against the order dated 03.01.2009, in accordance with law, and to ventilate all the grievances raised in the present petition before the said authority. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the order dated 03.01.2009 was passed as far back as in the year 2009 and the same has not been challenged by the petitioner before any competent forum for a considerable period of time. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2023, after an inordinate and unexplained delay. Learned counsel for the State, referring to the records available with the respondent/State, submits that the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner was acquired/taken over and, with the consent of the petitioner, equivalent value of Nazul land was allotted to him. Although the area of the Nazul land allotted to the petitioner is not equivalent to the area of the agricultural land 3 taken from him, the value of the Nazul land allotted is stated to be equivalent to the value of the agricultural land in question. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted at this belated stage. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and other material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, further, taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner has also not challenged the subsequent order dated 05.03.2011, which has a bearing upon the grievance raised in the present petition. In the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid order dated 05.03.2011, this Court is of the view that the grievance raised by the petitioner may appropriately be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the appropriate alternative remedy by filing an appeal/revision before the competent authority having jurisdiction, against the order dated 03.01.2009, and to ventilate all the grievances raised in the present petition, including the grievance relating to the subsequent order dated 05.03.2011, if permissible in law. Needless to observe that, in the event the petitioner avails such remedy, the competent authority shall consider and decide the 4 same strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat