1 CGHC010302382022 2026:CGHC:41175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4088 of 2022 Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri S.N. Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Tikrapara, Near Mama Bhanja Talab, Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner (Municipal Corporation) District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Principal D.P. Vipra College Bilaspur ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, PL For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Aprajita Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner, if it is available. 10.2 That the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to remove illegal construction of the respondent No. 4. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any order in nature of the case. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s mother is the owner and in possession of land admeasuring 2,700 square feet, bearing Khasra No. 211/45, situated at Juna Bilaspur. Out of the said land, approximately 1,800 square feet has been constructed upon, while the remaining area of approximately 900 square feet was kept for common use. It is further submitted that Khasra No. 211/45, belonging to the petitioner’s mother, is adjacent to Khasra Nos. 208 and 209, which are government lands. Respondent No. 4 has allegedly encroached upon approximately 900 square feet of the petitioner’s land as well as portions of the adjoining government land comprised in Khasra Nos. 208 and 209, and has commenced construction thereon without obtaining the requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner thereafter submitted a complaint before respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Pursuant 3 thereto, the Revenue Officer and the Municipal Officer visited the spot and called upon respondent No. 4 to produce the documents evidencing his ownership or lawful possession over the disputed land. However, respondent No. 4 failed to produce any such document. Despite the said inspection and the failure of respondent No. 4 to establish any lawful right or title over the land in question, no action has been taken by the concerned authorities till date. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that upon a complaint made by the petitioner’s mother, namely, Sushma Singh, alleging encroachment upon her land by respondent No. 4, proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar and notice was duly issued to respondent No. 4. In response thereto, respondent No. 4 filed its reply, denying the allegations of encroachment and stating that the land belonging to the petitioner’s mother, bearing Khasra No. 211/45, is adjacent to the land bearing Khasra No. 209, which is in possession of respondent No. 4. It was further stated that the said land is enclosed by a boundary wall and that construction of a room was being undertaken thereon in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is further submitted that, during the course of the proceedings, the Tahsildar called for a report from the concerned Patwari. The Patwari submitted his report along with the Panchnama, recording the possession of respondent No. 4 over the land enclosed by the boundary wall of the College/respondent No. 4, upon which the construction of the 4 room was being carried out. It is also submitted that despite opportunity being afforded, the petitioner’s mother failed to produce any valid documentary evidence substantiating her allegation that respondent No. 4 had encroached upon her land. After considering the material available on record and affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Tahsildar arrived at a finding that respondent No. 4 had not encroached upon the land belonging to the petitioner’s mother and that the room in question was being constructed upon the land in possession of respondent No. 4. Consequently, vide order dated 26.09.2022, the application/ complaint preferred by the petitioner’s mother has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the present petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the dispute raised by the petitioner relates to title, possession, demarcation and alleged encroachment over immovable property, involving disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with suppressio veri and suggestio falsi by deliberately withholding material facts. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner’s allegations were duly examined by the competent revenue authorities. Earlier, the petitioner’s mother had approached the Nayab Tahsildar, Bilaspur, alleging illegal construction and encroachment by respondent No. 4. Pursuant thereto, the Halka Patwari conducted a spot inspection in the 5 presence of the parties and, after verification of the original revenue records, reported that no encroachment was found and that the construction was within the existing boundary walls. On the basis of the said report and after affording due opportunity of hearing, the Nayab Tahsildar, vide order dated 26.09.2022, dismissed the application, recording that there was no encroachment. The said order has neither been challenged nor set aside and has attained finality. The petitioner has deliberately suppressed this material fact from this Court. It is further submitted that upon receipt of a subsequent complaint regarding the construction, notice dated 12.09.2022 was issued to respondent No. 4 seeking relevant ownership and permission documents. Respondent No. 4, vide replies dated 13.09.2022 and 20.10.2022, informed the respondent about the revenue proceedings and the order dated 26.09.2022. In view thereof, no further proceedings were warranted. The petitioner and his mother have also not sought demarcation before the competent revenue authority till date. Moreover, the construction in question has already been completed from public funds. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent revenue authority/civil court for adjudication of the issues relating to title, possession, demarcation and encroachment, therefore, the present petition, involving disputed questions of fact and in view of the efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed. 6 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the construction in question is situated entirely within the land and boundary of respondent No. 4 and was undertaken after obtaining the requisite permissions from the competent authorities, including the Collector’s permission dated 10.03.2022. The construction was completed from public funds under Vidhayak Nidhi. Pursuant to the petitioner’s complaints dated 23.08.2022 and 08.09.2022, the matter was duly enquired into by the Tahsildar in Revenue Case No. 202208072500027/B-121/2021-22. After considering the Patwari’s report dated 16.08.2022, the Panchnama prepared in the presence of the parties, and the relevant revenue records, the Tahsildar, vide order dated 26.09.2022, categorically found that the construction was within the boundary of the College land and that there was no encroachment over the petitioner’s land. The said order was communicated to the Municipal Authorities vide letter dated 20.10.2022 and has neither been challenged nor appealed against by the petitioner. It has, therefore, attained finality. Accordingly, no illegality is made out against respondent No. 4 and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents placed on record, it appears that the grievance raised by the petitioner was duly considered by the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, Bilaspur (C.G.) passed an order dated 26.09.2022, wherein, upon spot inspection, verification and demarcation of the land in question, it was 7 categorically found that respondent No. 4 had not encroached upon the land belonging to the petitioner. Accordingly, the claim raised by the petitioner has been rejected. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order dated 26.09.2022 has neither been challenged nor assailed by the petitioner before the competent revenue authority in accordance with law. Consequently, the said order has attained finality and is binding upon the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground is made out for interference in the present proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL