1 CGHC010264132026 2026:CGHC:38968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3811 of 2026 1 - Chunuram Sahu S/o Awadhram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Darra Tahsil Kurud District- Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Revenue Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Dhamtari District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Sirri District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Darra Block- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Secretary Garm Panchayat Darra Block- Kurud District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to take action against the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent no. 4. 10.3) That, the Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to make an appropriate writ order for the compensations of the damages. 10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has called in question the illegal, arbitrary and unjustified action of respondent No. 4, whereby the well-constructed residential house belonging to the petitioner was demolished on 05.06.2025 without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner and without affording him any reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4, in an arbitrary and high-handed manner, proceeded to demolish the aforesaid residential house without following the procedure prescribed under law and without granting the petitioner any opportunity to raise his objections or to protect his lawful rights and interest in respect of the property in question. The petitioner further submits that, despite the demolition of his residential house, no compensation whatsoever has been paid or offered to him towards the loss and damage suffered by him on 3 account of such demolition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of respondent No. 4, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief against the alleged illegal and arbitrary action and for issuance of suitable directions in accordance with law. 3. None appears for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that a civil suit in respect of the very same property is already pending consideration before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. It is, therefore, contended that, in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings involving the property in question, the relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon by this Court and the petitioner may be relegated to pursue his remedy before the competent Civil Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the State and having perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, in particular, taking into consideration the fact that a civil suit in respect of the very same property is already pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present proceedings. The petitioner is, accordingly, relegated to pursue his remedy before the concerned Civil Court, where the dispute 4 relating to the property in question is already pending consideration. It is open to the petitioner to raise all such grounds and contentions as may be available to him in law before the said Court. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or on the rival claims of the parties, as the dispute in respect of the property in question is already seized of by the competent Civil Court. The learned Civil Court shall, therefore, consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat