1 2026:CGHC:15207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1108 of 2021 Omkar Tarak S/o Puran Lal Tarak Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Koma Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Tahsildar Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Koma, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate. For State/Res : Shri Arpit Agrawal, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.07 11:13:10 +0530 2 02/04/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the inaction on the part of Respondent No.1 who has not considered and decided the representation moved by the petitioner regarding settlement of land situated at village Koma, Patwari Circle No.24/11, survey No. 731/1, area 0.030 hectare land on the ground possession since last 100 years. 2. Facts as projected in the petition are that the forefathers of the petitioner were in possession of land situated in Village Koma, Patwari Circle No. 24/11 survey no. 731/1 admeasuring 0.030 hectare. The petitioner is in possession of the above mentioned land at present and he is cultivating it peacefully. In the year 1991, notice was issued to the grandfather of the petitioner under section 248 of the Land Revenue Code and fine of Rs. 200/- was paid on 19.2.1991. Respondent no. 3 had issued notice under section 248 of the Land Revenue Code on 30.11.2009 again for appearance of petitioner on 8.12.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 3 on 8.12.2009 filed his reply and stated that he has no other land for his livelihood and he is in possession of the land since last 40 years. On 30.12.2009, the petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 3 which is evident from order sheet but thereafter proceeding was adjourned but surprisingly case has been reopened without giving any opportunity to the petitioner on 5.10.2019 after 10 years. The petitioner could not appear on the date of hearing on 5.10.2019 and 5.11.2019 but the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 6.12.2019 directed the Patwari to remove the possession of the petitioner and to submit report in 3 this regard. On 6.1.2020, 7.3.2020, 7.4.2020, 17.8.2020 and 21.12.2020 the case was adjourned as report of Patwari was awaited. Respondent no. 4 has issued a notice on 6.5.2020 to the petitioner for presence of the petitioner on 11.5.2020 stating that the Patwari would enquire the matter. Petitioner has made a representation before the respondent no. 1 to frame policy for settlement of land situated in rural area as petitioner is in possession of the land since last 50 years. Likewise, the petitioner has made representation before the respondent no. 2 on 14.1.2021. Respondent no. 3 has initiated the proceeding after 10 years on instance of respondent no. 4 whereas earlier the petitioner has deposited the amount of fine. The order of dispossession has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and the respondent no. 3 has not complied the procedure contemplated in the section 248 of the Land Revenue Code. Hence this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are alleged to have been occupied the government land, however, petitioner is in possession of the subject land since last 50 years as grandfather of the petitioner was also in possession of the land in question. They have also filed an application for grant of patta (lease) which is pending for consideration before the appropriate authority, however, till date it has not been decided. Whereas, on the other hand, concerned Tehsildar has passed an order for eviction of the petitioners, as such, this Writ Petition has been filed. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court has granted interim protection vide order dated 25.02.2021 to the effect that possession of the petitioner shall not be ejected from the subject land, as such, petitioner is still in possession of the subject land in question. 5. Learned State counsel submits that instead of availing alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the law, the petitioner has directly come before this Court. The petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Tehsildar for redressal of his grievance regarding grant of patta (lease) which he has not done, therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition. 7. From the bare perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner is an encroacher on the land in question of which he has possession since long back and he has also filed a representation for grant of patta (lease) which according to the petitioner is pending for consideration before the State authorities. The power is vested with the concerned Collector to pass appropriate order on application for grant of lease (patta). As such, this Writ Petition is perhaps not maintainable in view of the fact that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the law. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the appropriate State authorities for grant of patta (lease) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by filing appropriate application in addition to the earlier representation which the petitioner had filed before the State 5 authorities, along with relevant documents and in turn, the appropriate State Authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of such application by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 9. Till the disposal of the said application by the appropriate State authorities, the authorities concerned are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 10.With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash