Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38072 (CHH)

SMT. SUNDARI BAI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/4797/2026 · 2026-09-27

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010366642026 2026:CGHC:42245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4797 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sundari Bai W/o Shri Babulal Poya, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Madan Nagar, Tehsil And P.S. Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sundar Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 Issue a writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 03/07/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pratappur, removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. 10.2 Issue a strict direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Madan Nagar, with immediate effect and with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to strictly adhere to the provisions of the PESA Act, 1996 and Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022, mandating prior Gram Sabha consultation for any land survey or acquisition activities in the scheduled villages. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is alternative remedy available to him under the law to redress his grievance. As such, he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail alternative remedy available to him available under the law. 3. No objection has been raised from other side. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in favour of the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to him under the law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat