1 CGHC010250532016 2026:CGHC:42154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 308 of 2016 1 - Manoj Malviya S/o Mahesh Malviya, Aged About 43 Years R/o Main Road, In Front Of Bus Stand, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajkumar Malviya, S/o Ghasiram Malviya, Aged About 55 Years R/o Main Road, In Front Of Bus Stand, Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Angura Gupta, W/o Chandra Prakash Gupta, Aged About 40 Years R/o Main Road, In Front Of Bus Stand, Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - Umesh Gupta, S/o Late Phool Chand Gupta, Aged About 40 Years R/o Main Road, In Front Of Bus Stand, Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 5 - Virendra Gupta, S/o Late Jagmohan Gupta, Aged About 50 Years R/o Main Road, In Front Of Bus Stand, Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Public Trust And Religious Endowments, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Cum Registrar, Public Trust Shri Mai Danteshwari Temple Estate, Dantewada, District South Bastar, Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Cum Honorary Secretary, Shri Mai Danteshwari Temple Estate, Dantewada, District South Bastar, Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.29 14:39:59 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- 10.1 To call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner’s case for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. 10.2 To issue Mandamus directing not to demolish any property falling within the authority of the Diety/Temple. 10.3 To issue Mandamus directing respondent authorities not to eject the petitioners otherwise than following due course of law. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the respondents have no authority to continue as President, Secretary or Treasurer of any authority of temple estate sine die and they are bound to take steps either for registration of temple under the CG public trust act or any other law applicable for registration of trust. 10.4 To direct the respondents authorities to renew the lease as per the terms of the lease for another 30 years. 10.5 Cost of petition may be allowed. 10.6 Grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the present case are that the managing committee of the temple trust executed lease deeds in favor of the petitioners’ forefathers in the year 1982 and renewed them in the year 2012. However, some structures constructed over the leased lands have been demolished by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and the petitioners 3 are under apprehension that their superstructures will be demolish in a similar fashion. 3. Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be permitted to approach the competent authority. He would contend that interim order was passed on 03.02.2016 and it may be continued till the representation submitted by the petitioners is decided by the said authority. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy, thus, this petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of the petitioners to make a detailed representation along with relevant documents within period of 30 days before the respondent authorities, who in turn are directed to decide such representation, if so preferred by the petitioners strictly in accordance with law, preferably within further period of 60 days. 7. However, interim relief granted on 03.02.2016 shall operate till the representation of the petitioners is decided. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE vatti