1 2026:CGHC:15197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1989 of 2020 1 - Dr. Girdhari Chandrakar S/o Late Lakhan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Belsonda, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Pushpa Chandrakar W/o Dr. Girdhari Chandrakar Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Belsonda, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gopal Chandrakar S/o Late Lakhan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Belsonda, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Division Officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Village Panchayat Belsonda Through Its Sarpanch, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Caust-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate and Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the petitioner's case from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ against the illegal and arbitrary action of the Respondent authorities and restrain them to not disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners. 10.3 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ against the respondents directed them not to harass the petitioners and also provided the proper protection against the illegal process to removal of the petitioners from their agriculture land and also consider to the petitioners application for grant of Patta in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners claim to be in long-standing, peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural 3 lands bearing Khasra Nos. 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672 and 1673 situated at Village Belsonda, District Mahasamund, and have been cultivating the same for nearly seventy years while regularly paying revenue taxes, as reflected in the revenue records. It is the case of the petitioners that despite their settled possession, the respondent authorities, pursuant to a State Government scheme, initiated steps for construction of a community cattle shelter (Gothan) and subsequently an agricultural mandi over the said land, based on proposals and resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat, allegedly in an arbitrary and mala fide manner. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Mahasamund, granted administrative approval on 05.03.2020 for construction over part of the petitioners’ land. The petitioners contend that earlier revenue proceedings initiated against them for alleged encroachment were decided in their favour by order dated 09.08.2011, recognizing their long possession and holding that they could not be dispossessed under summary revenue jurisdiction. Despite this, the respondents allegedly attempted to forcibly dispossess the petitioners without following due process, compelling them to submit multiple representations before the authorities, which remained unaddressed. Aggrieved by the alleged illegal, arbitrary and forcible action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess them from their agricultural land without adherence to principles of natural justice, the petitioners have 4 approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondent authorities, particularly the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat Belsonda for construction of a Gothan and agricultural mandi over the petitioners’ land bearing Khasra Nos. 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672 and 1673, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and amounts to a colourable exercise of power. It is contended that the said action has been undertaken without following due process of law and in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the Gram Panchayat has passed the impugned resolutions without adhering to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and without any lawful authority, thereby rendering the entire action void ab initio. Learned counsel argues that the petitioners have been in continuous, peaceful possession of the land for nearly seventy years, and their rights and possession have already been recognized by the competent revenue court. Despite this, respondent No. 5 has acted arbitrarily in seeking to dispossess the petitioners, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to law. Learned counsel also contends that the impugned action is mala fide and has been taken with an ulterior motive to harass and victimize the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have been forcefully ousted from their agricultural land, which amounts to violation of their constitutional right to property under 5 Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, as no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law. It is further argued that the proposed construction of a Gothan or agricultural mandi on the disputed land is unjust and unreasonable, particularly when the land has been under cultivation and use of the petitioners’ family for decades. The decision of the respondents is stated to be influenced by extraneous considerations and not based on any lawful justification. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioners have already applied for grant of patta over the said land, which is pending consideration before the competent authority, and in view of their long-standing possession, there is a strong likelihood of the same being decided in their favour. In such circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the writ petition, submits that the present petition is not maintainable in law inasmuch as the petitioners have already availed an alternative remedy by filing a civil suit for declaration of title with respect to the same subject land, wherein identical issues have been raised and are under consideration before the competent civil court. It is contended that the reliefs sought in the present writ petition are substantially similar to those claimed before the civil court, and therefore, parallel proceedings before this Court are impermissible. It is further submitted that the land in question is recorded in the 6 revenue records as Government grass land, and the petitioners are merely unauthorized occupants having no lawful title over the same. The civil suit filed by the petitioners has already been dismissed, and though an observation was made regarding dispossession only in accordance with due process of law, the petitioners cannot claim any legal right or ownership over the said land. Learned State counsel submits that proceedings under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code have already been initiated against the petitioners for eviction as encroachers, and the matter is presently pending before the competent revenue authority. It is argued that the petition is premature and the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge any adverse order before the appropriate forum under the statutory scheme. It is also contended that the land has been allotted for public purposes, including construction of a paddy procurement platform, pursuant to due administrative process, and the objections raised by the petitioners have already been considered and rejected by the competent authority. The petitioners have failed to establish any legal right over the land, and thus, no interference is warranted under writ jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel prays that the writ petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and 7 perused the material available on record. 6. From the pleadings and submissions advanced, it is evident that the petitioners are claiming right, title and possession over the disputed land and have sought protection against alleged dispossession by the respondent authorities. At the same time, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have already availed remedy by filing a civil suit seeking declaration of title and related reliefs with respect to the very same subject land. The reliefs sought in the present writ petition are substantially identical to those raised before the competent civil court. In such circumstances, when the petitioners have already approached the civil court and the matter is either pending or has been adjudicated subject to further remedies, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 7. Entertaining parallel proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not only be inappropriate but would also result in multiplicity of proceedings. Further, the dispute involved in the present case pertains to questions relating to title, possession and alleged encroachment over the land in question, which are essentially disputed questions of fact. Such issues require detailed evidence and adjudication, which cannot be effectively undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy 8 for adjudication of disputed questions of fact, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy before the civil court is available and has already been invoked by the petitioners. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue such remedies as may be available to them under the law before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE