1 2026:CGHC:20242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1802 of 2025 1 - Mahendra Shriwas S/o Shri Vedram Shriwa Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Devrikhurd, Police Station- Torwa, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur C.G., Mo No. 9770666155 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Through Assistant Engineer, Sub- Division-3, Abhilasha Parisar, New Bus Stand, Tifra Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1879 of 2025 1 - Narendra Shriwas S/o Shri Vedram Shriwas Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Devrikhurd Police Station Torwa Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. 9827933511 ---Petitioner(s) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Girh Nirman Mandal Through Assistant Engineer Sub Division - 3 , Abhilasha Parisar New Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1883 of 2025 1 - Smt. Anju Lata W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Aged About 51 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar Torwa Police Station Torwa Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. 9752442124 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Through Assistant Engineer Sub Division- 3 Abhilasha Parisar New Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 3 WPC No. 1890 of 2025 1 - Dharmendra Shriwas D/o Shri Vedram Shriwas Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Devrikhurd Police Station Torwa Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. 6263376878 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Through Assistant Engineer Sub Divisional - 3 Abhilasha Parisar New Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1843 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sonpati W/o Shri Purnamasi, Aged About 51 Years Caste- Kori, R/o Village Devrikhurd, Police Station- Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 9752442056 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 2 - Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Through Assistant Enginner, Sub- Division- 3, Abhilasha Parisar, New Bus Stand, Tifra Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Government Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. The contents and factual matrix involved in all the writ petitions would revel that the bone of contention in them is one and same, as such, all these writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, writ petition No. 1805 of 2023 has been taken as lead case in order to decide the issues involved in these matters. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 5 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct to the respondent authorities to restore the boundarywall of the petitioner, is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner claims to have purchased a portion of land bearing Khasra No. 142/12 admeasuring 1000 sq. ft. situated at Village Devrikhurd, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, from one Shashiprabha Singh through a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2018. Pursuant to the said transaction, the land was duly mutated in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, reflecting his ownership and possession. It is further stated that prior to the sale, the land had already been demarcated in favour of the vendor, and the petitioner, after purchase, continued in possession and raised construction, including a boundary wall and installation of a borewell. Subsequently, on 12.07.2024, the petitioner was served with a notice by respondent No. 2 alleging encroachment over adjoining lands bearing Khasra Nos. 142/1 क and 142/1 ख and directing removal of such encroachment within a stipulated period. The petitioner replied to the said notice asserting his lawful 6 ownership and possession over Khasra No. 142/12 based on the registered sale deed and prior demarcation. It is the case of the petitioner that despite such reply, the respondent authorities proceeded on the basis of a subsequent demarcation report dated 19.06.2021, which, according to the petitioner, was prepared without issuing any notice to him and without following due procedure. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, which is stated to be pending consideration. During the pendency of the said proceedings, it is alleged that on 18.03.2025, respondent No. 2 demolished the boundary wall constructed by the petitioner and levelled the land in question without awaiting the outcome of the pending revision. The petitioner asserts that such action was taken in an arbitrary and mala fide manner and without following due process of law, including compliance with statutory provisions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents in demolishing the boundary wall and interfering with the possession of the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of statutory safeguards. It is contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question through a registered sale deed and has been in peaceful possession thereof since the date of purchase. It is further submitted that the respondents have acted in contravention of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board Act, 1972, 7 particularly Section 55(2), which mandates that before taking any action for eviction or removal, the competent authority is required to issue a notice, disclose the grounds, and afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected person. In the present case, no such opportunity was granted to the petitioner prior to demolition, rendering the action of the respondents procedurally illegal. Learned counsel also submits that the reliance placed by the respondents on the demarcation report dated 19.06.2021 is misplaced, as the said demarcation pertains to different khasra numbers and, in any case, is under challenge before the competent revisional authority. It is argued that without awaiting the outcome of the pending revision proceedings, the respondents could not have taken coercive action against the petitioner. It is further contended that the demarcation proceedings themselves suffer from procedural irregularities, inasmuch as no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to conducting such demarcation, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, by acting on such defective demarcation report and proceeding to demolish the petitioner’s boundary wall, have acted in a high- handed and mala fide manner. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that appropriate relief be granted by this Court by setting aside the impugned action of the respondents and protecting the possession and rights of the petitioner over the land in question. 8 5. Learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition, as framed and filed, is devoid of merit and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is contended that, as per the own showing of the petitioner, he had purchased a portion of land bearing Khasra No. 142/12 admeasuring 1000 sq. ft. from one Shashiprabha Singh by a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2018, and prior to such transaction, the land had already been subjected to demarcation proceedings on 25.12.2017 in the name of the vendor. It is further submitted that subsequently, respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 12.07.2024 to the petitioner directing removal of encroachment from the adjoining lands bearing Khasra Nos. 142/1 क and 142/1 ख. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply claiming lawful purchase and possession over the land in question. However, it is submitted that the competent authority had already obtained a demarcation report in respect of the relevant lands through respondent No. 4, on the basis of which necessary action was undertaken. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding non-service of notice prior to demarcation and illegality in preparation of the demarcation report are matters of factual dispute, which are already subject matter of consideration before the competent authority, i.e., the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, in the pending revision proceedings. It is contended that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by filing the said revision, and therefore, the present writ petition is not 9 maintainable at this stage. It is also submitted that insofar as the allegation regarding demolition of the boundary wall is concerned, the same pertains to the actions of respondent No. 2, namely the Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, which is the competent authority responsible for such action. The State Government has no direct role in the alleged demolition, nor has any specific relief been sought against the State authorities in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits that the same is wholly misconceived, based on incorrect and misleading facts, and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for want of merit. At the outset, it is contended that respondent No. 2 had issued notice dated 12.07.2024 only with a limited purpose, namely, to inform the petitioner that there was encroachment over the land bearing Khasra Nos. 142/1 क and 142/1 ख and to direct stoppage of construction of the boundary wall. It is submitted that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner himself complied with the same by immediately stopping further construction and removing the alleged encroachment. Therefore, the allegation that respondent No. 2 demolished the boundary wall is factually incorrect and has been deliberately made to mislead this Court, particularly when no specific date or time of such alleged demolition has been disclosed. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, inasmuch as he has suppressed material facts. It is pointed out that the notice dated 10 12.07.2024 was never challenged before any forum, and instead, the petitioner chose to file a revision before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, which is still pending consideration. Having already invoked an alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to simultaneously pursue the present writ petition, as parallel remedies are not permissible in law. It is also contended that the dispute raised by the petitioner essentially pertains to title and possession over land bearing Khasra No. 142/12, whereas respondent No. 2 asserts ownership and possession over adjoining lands, including Khasra Nos. 142/1 क and 142/1 ख, forming part of a larger tract measuring about 44.01 acres, which has been in possession of respondent No. 2 since 06.08.1988. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 had initiated development activities, including construction of a housing colony, after conducting demarcation through competent revenue authorities on 19.06.2021. In the course of such development, certain encroachments were noticed, leading to issuance of notices. Learned counsel emphasizes that any dispute relating to title, boundary, or possession of immovable property falls squarely within the domain of the civil court, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked for adjudication of such disputed questions of fact. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to place any cogent material to prima facie establish that respondent No. 2 is encroaching upon his land or that any illegal action has been taken against him. It is 11 further submitted that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, both by way of pending revision proceedings and by approaching the competent civil court, bars the invocation of writ jurisdiction in the present case. Reliance is placed upon settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in decisions such as Jai Singh v. Union of India, Union of India v. T.R. Verma, and CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, to contend that writ petitions ought not to be entertained where adequate alternative remedies are available, unless exceptional circumstances are made out, which is not the case herein. Learned counsel thus submits that the present petition is not only premature but also involves disputed questions of fact and title, for which appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil court. The petitioner, having failed to establish any legal right or infringement thereof, is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 7. At this stage, Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present case can be effectively resolved by directing the competent authorities to undertake a fresh demarcation of the land in question, both with respect to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that such demarcation exercise be carried out by constituting a team comprising the Tahsildar, Patwari and Revenue Inspector, and that the same be conducted in the presence of the petitioner as 12 well as the officers of the Housing Board, so as to ensure transparency and to avoid any future dispute between the parties. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of dispute between the parties which primarily relates to identification, demarcation and possession over the land in question, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy can be effectively resolved by directing the competent authorities to undertake a fresh demarcation of the land. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the concerned authorities shall carry out demarcation of the land in question in respect of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2. The demarcation shall be conducted by constituting a team comprising the Tahsildar, Patwari and Revenue Inspector, and the same shall be carried out in the presence of the petitioner as well as the officers of the Housing Board. Both the parties are directed to appear in the said demarcation proceedings and extend full cooperation for its proper execution. 11. It is further directed that on the basis of such demarcation proceedings, if it is found that the land of the petitioner has been interfered with and that the boundary wall of the petitioner has been illegally demolished, the concerned authorities shall take appropriate steps for restoration of the same at their own cost. Conversely, if it is found that there exists any encroachment upon 13 the land belonging to respondent No. 2, the authorities shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and take appropriate action. 12. For the purpose of compliance, learned State counsel is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bilaspur. The said SDO shall, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, constitute a team consisting of one Tahsildar, two Revenue Inspectors and two Patwaris for carrying out the demarcation. The demarcation exercise shall thereafter be completed within a further period of 15 days. 13. The report of constitution of the team as well as the demarcation report shall be submitted before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated time. 14. Till the aforesaid demarcation proceedings are completed, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question. 15. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge