1 CGHC010173962025 2026:CGHC:38551-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 305 of 2025 1 - Biranchi Chaudhari S/o Hiralal Chaudhari Aged About 47 Years R/o Ahead of Railway Crossing, Ward No. 50, Borsibhata, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Jivan Yadav S/o Kartik Yadav Aged About 43 Years (Wrongly mentioned as Kranti Yadav), R/o Ahead of Railway Crossing, Ward No. 50, Borsibhata, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Asha Sahu W/o Late Hemat Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Ahead of Railway Crossing, Ward No. 50, Borsibhata, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Kunj Sahu S/o Late Ganesh Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ahead of Railway Crossing, Ward No. 50, Borsibhata Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Nagar Palika Nigam Durg Through Commissioner Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.09.02 11:01:42 +0530 2 4 - Smt. Suman Nadesan Unni W/o K. Srishanan Unni Aged About 56 Years R/o Quarter No. 4/A Street No. 35, Sector - 10, Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Bhaskar Jha and Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocates. For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Jha and Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Pryank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.2132/2025 and also set aside the impugned notice dated 24.04.2025 issued by the Nagar Nigam Durg, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.2132/2025 (Biranchi Chaudhari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants/writ petitioners had earlier filed WPC No.1787/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025, directing them to approach the concerned authorities with an appropriate application and relevant documents by 11.04.2025, and directing the authorities to consider the same by 24.04.2025. Pursuant thereto, the authorities issued notice dated 24.04.2025, which was challenged by the appellants in WPC No.2132/2025. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.04.2025, holding that filing a subsequent petition on the same cause of action amounted to an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the notice dated 24.04.2025 gave rise to a fresh cause of action and, therefore, the order dated 28.04.2025 is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed impugned order dated 28.04.2025 in WPC No.2132/2025, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 4 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 7. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 that:- “3 From perusal of the records, it seems that this is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing WPC No.1787/2025, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025, observing as follows :- “5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though earlier notices were issued to the petitioners by the Nagar Palika Nigam, Durg on several occasions, however, the petitioners were failed to produce any documents in respect of their entitlement and possession. This Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order dated 24.02.2025 passed in WPC No.1035/2025 by which a direction was issued to the concerned Collector, Durg to take appropriate steps in respect of illegal encroachment made over the grass land situated in Village-Borsi bearing Khasra No. 194/1. 6. Since notice has been issued in pursuance of order dated 24.03.2025 as such the petitioners are given a liberty to approach 5 before the concerned Nagar Palika Nigam, Durg while filing appropriate application along with the relevant documents on which they are claiming their entitlement over the dispute land. This be done within a period of 2 days and, in turn, the concerned authorities especially respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and to decide the same in accordance with law. 7. Though the petitioners are encroachers but even if they are encroachers they are required to be heard and if after hearing petitioners are failed to produce any documents the concerned respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders for eviction and to take appropriate action. 8. The petitioners are directed to file an appropriate application before the concerned respondent authorities along with relevant documents by 11th of April, 2025, and, in turn, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to consider the same by 24th of April, 2025. 9. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that on the same cause of action, earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioners, which 6 was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025 directing the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the concerned respondent authorities along with relevant documents by 11th of April, 2025, and, in turn, the concerned respondent authorities were directed to consider the same by 24th of April, 2025, this Court is of the opinion that for the same cause of action, this second petition cannot be entertained. Once the order has been passed, the petitioners should have approached before the authorities for redressal of their grievance. Filing of consequent petition will not make out any new case. The subsequent filing of petition on the same cause of action is an abuse of process of law, which is not permissible. 5 In the result, instant writ petition lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 8. The contention of the petitioners is that, in pursuance of the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the writ Court in WPC No.1787 of 2025 the petitioners had presented their representation, but the representation was not decided by the competent authority and notice dated 24.04.2025 was issued to them, but learned Single Judge while dismissing the present writ petition vide impugned order dated 28.04.2025 held that for the same cause of action, this second petition cannot be entertained and has not considered the issuance of notice dated 24.04.2025. 7 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.04.2025. The earlier writ petition, WPC No.1787/2025, was disposed of on 08.04.2025 with liberty to the appellants to submit their representation along with relevant documents before the competent authority and with a direction to the authorities to consider the same by 24.04.2025. Admittedly, pursuant thereto, the appellants submitted their representation, which was followed by the notice dated 24.04.2025. In the circumstances, the appellants ought to have pursued the remedy before the competent authority instead of instituting a second writ petition on the same subject matter. Mere issuance of the subsequent notice did not give rise to an independent cause of action so as to maintain a fresh writ petition. 10. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed WPC No.2132 of 2025 as an abuse of the process of law, and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil