1 2026:CGHC:15196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3029 of 2020 1 - Munni Soni W/o Krishna Dutt Soni Aged About 71 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Near Thana, Manendragarh, Tehsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Village Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Collector, Manendragarh District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tehsildar, Manendragarh District Koriya 4 - Kamta Prasad Soni S/o Shree Bhagwandeen Soni, R/o Ward No. 11, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh 5 - Awadhsharan Soni S/o Ramsakha Soni, R/o Ward No. 11, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh 6 - Pramod Soni S/o Shree Krishna Soni, R/o Ward No. 11, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Caust-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Tanusha Pathak, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “1. To quash and set aside the order dated 04/09/2020 (Annexure P/4) passed by Learned Additional Collector Manendragarh. 2. To direct the respondent authority to expeditiously decide the Petitioner's application for grant of lease in revenue proceedings bearing registration 30/A- 20(1)/2019-20. 3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an encroachment proceeding was initiated as early as in the year 1983 against respondent Nos. 4 and 5, wherein an order for removal of encroachment was passed against the said private respondents. However, the said order was never implemented by the revenue authorities for reasons best known to them, and the encroachment continued to subsist on the land in question. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1986–87, he had applied for grant of patta over the Nazul land, and pursuant thereto, patta was granted in his favour in respect of Plot No. 3/1 admeasuring 390 3 square feet situated at Manendragarh (hereinafter referred to as the “disputed land”) in revenue proceedings bearing Registration No. 03/A-20(1)/1986-87. However, the original records pertaining to the said proceedings were subsequently lost, for which action was also initiated against the concerned officials. Despite loss of records, the petitioner claims to have remained in continuous possession of the disputed land since then. Subsequently, alleging illegal encroachment over the disputed land by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Tehsildar, Manendragarh, which was registered as Revenue Case No. 01/A-68/2017-18. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the private respondents filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking deletion of the petitioner from the array of parties. The learned Tehsildar, vide order dated 22.10.2018, allowed the said application and removed the petitioner from the proceedings on the ground that the land in question is Nazul land and the State Government is the necessary party, not the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Additional Collector. However, the revisional authority, vide order dated 04.09.2020, dismissed the revision petition without proper application of mind, merely affirming the reasoning of the Tehsildar. It is further stated that prior to this, the petitioner had 4 approached this Court, which vide order dated 30.07.2019 in WPC No. 2601/2019 (Munni Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh), granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for grant of lease over the disputed land. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a fresh application in accordance with the Revenue Book Circular before the competent authority, which is presently pending consideration before the Additional Collector, Manendragarh, District Koriya. In connection with the said application, the Tehsildar also issued a public notice dated 17.07.2020 inviting objections regarding title and ownership of the disputed land. The petitioner contends that he is a necessary party to the pending revenue proceedings as he has been in possession of the disputed land for more than three decades and had earlier been granted patta in his favour, though the official records were lost due to negligence of the authorities. In view of the pending proceedings for grant of lease and his long- standing possession, the petitioner asserts his right to be impleaded and heard in the revenue proceedings concerning the same land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities, particularly in removing the petitioner from the array of parties in the revenue proceedings and in failing to take timely action on the petitioner’s application for grant of lease, is wholly arbitrary, unjust and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner, 5 being in long-standing possession of the disputed Nazul land and having earlier been granted patta in the year 1986–87, has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings, and therefore, his exclusion from the revenue case is legally unsustainable. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner having approached the competent authorities pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court and having filed a proper application for grant of lease in accordance with the Revenue Book Circular, the said application has been kept pending for an inordinate period without any justifiable reason. Learned counsel submits that such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities reflects a passive and negligent approach, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, including physical, mental, emotional and financial hardship. Learned counsel contends that the respondent authorities have been unnecessarily prolonging the matter, compelling the petitioner to run from pillar to post without any effective redressal. It is argued that while the authorities have failed to act on the petitioner’s legitimate application, no prompt action has been taken against the alleged encroachers, despite earlier orders for removal of encroachment having been passed as far back as in the year 1983. Such selective and delayed action, according to learned counsel, is arbitrary and indicative of administrative apathy. It is further submitted that the inaction of the respondent authorities itself 6 gives rise to an independent cause of action, and this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is fully empowered to issue appropriate directions to ensure expeditious consideration and disposal of the petitioner’s pending application. Learned counsel emphasizes that any further delay would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s valuable rights, particularly when the petitioner has been in possession of the disputed land for several decades. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the pending revenue proceedings relating to encroachment, as the disputed land is the same over which the petitioner claims possession and for which lease proceedings are pending. It is contended that the petitioner possesses relevant documents and material to substantiate his claim of long-standing possession, and his exclusion from the proceedings would result in denial of fair hearing and miscarriage of justice. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious and adequate alternative remedy available under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which she has either already availed or is still available to her, but without exhausting the same, she has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the eviction proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code have already been initiated by the competent authority in 7 Revenue Case No. 01/A-68/2017-18, and during the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner was rightly deleted as a party by the learned Tahsildar vide order dated 22.10.2018, which order has been affirmed by the Additional Collector in revision vide order dated 04.09.2020 after due consideration of the material on record. Thus, the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of revision, and any further grievance ought to be agitated before the appropriate forum as provided under law. Learned State counsel further submits that so far as the petitioner’s grievance regarding expeditious disposal of her application for grant of lease is concerned, the said application has been duly registered as a revenue case and is presently pending consideration before the competent authority. Necessary steps, including issuance of public notice inviting objections, have already been undertaken, and the matter is being processed in accordance with law. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. It is thus submitted that when a complete statutory mechanism is available and the proceedings are already pending before the competent authorities, the petitioner cannot bypass the same and invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. On this ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 8 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the primary challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Collector, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 7. From a plain reading of the said order, it is evident that the competent authority has already adjudicated the matter in exercise of its quasi-judicial powers. It further appears that against the aforesaid order dated 04.09.2020, the petitioner has not availed the further alternative remedy available under the law and has instead directly approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. It is a settled principle that when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is not maintainable at this stage for non- availing of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the relevant statutory provisions. However, considering the fact that the present petition has remained pending before this Court since the year 2020, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority/forum by availing the alternative remedy available under law. 9. It is further directed that, in the event such proceedings are initiated by the petitioner, the concerned authority shall consider 9 the aspect of delay in approaching the said forum in a pragmatic manner, keeping in view that the present writ petition has been pending before this Court since the year 2020. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE