1 CGHC010346352026 2026:CGHC:39273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4556 of 2026 1 - Subhash Agrawal S/o Late Balbir Agrawal Aged About 66 Years R/o Abdul Kalam Ward, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Rekha Agrawal W/o Subhash Agrawal Aged About 60 Years R/o Abdul Kalam Ward, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Ankit Agrawal S/o Subhash Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o Abdul Kalam Ward, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Tahsildar Frezarpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Aastha Agrawal D/o Late Pushpi Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o- Kumhara, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) Temporary Address- 2a, B- Block, Merlin Jayshree Vihar, Mandi Gate Road, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 08.09.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners call in question the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the Tahsildar, Frezarpur, District Bastar (C.G.), whereby the petitioners have been restrained from carrying out YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.08 17:26:05 +0530 2 further construction over the subject land. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, quashing the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by Tahsildar Frezarpur, District-Bastar (C.G.). 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order has been passed without initiation of any proper proceeding, without issuance of notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is essentially with regard to their respective rights over the subject property and, therefore, the Tahsildar could not have granted an injunction in favour of a private party in the manner as has been done by the impugned order. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the petition, submits that the impugned order is an interim order and the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy available under the relevant provisions of law for questioning the same before the competent forum. It is, therefore, submitted that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be invoked at this stage. 3 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that, since the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy available to them under law for questioning the impugned interim order, no interference is called for in exercise of the writ jurisdiction at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail such alternative remedy as may be available to them under law. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh