Deena Nath Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 ss. 9, 12(5)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stand disposed of. AMIT KUMAR DUBEY KUMAR DUBEY 12:29:46 +0530 Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge
Judgment
6 - Narendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Gareeb Narayan Sharma R/o Amraiyya Para Korba District- Korba (C.G.) {Cause title, as taken from CIS} ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General. 2 {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 01/04/2026
Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case.
10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 01/12/2025, as well as the entire proceedings of the Revenue Case No. 202508050200037, Year 2024-25, pending before the respondent no. 3, as the same is not maintainable.
10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Memorandum dated 01/12/2025, bearing no. 5420.A.Vi.A./Vachak-
1.2025, issued by respondent no. 3.
10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the maintainability of the proceedings first before going into the merits of case.
10.5 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to kindly permit the petitioners to run their respective shops and restrain the respondents from causing any hindrance in running shops.
10.6 Any other consequential relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper and for which the petitioners is entitled, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 3 / Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora (C.G.)-cum-Rent Control Authority, vide impugned order dated 01.12.2025, while allowing the application filed by respondent 3 No. 6 for eviction of petitioner from the disputed shop under Section 12 (5) read with Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for brevity, “ Act, 2011} and Rule 2 & 3 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Rule, 2016, has directed to seal the dispute shop whereas, the private Respondent No. 6 does not hold ownership rights over the land upon which the said disputed shop is situated. Hence, the prays that this petition may be admitted for hearing.
In reply, learned counsel for the State would submit that if the petitioner has aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.12.2025, then he may challenge the same by filing appeal under Section 13 of the Act,2011 instead thereof, the petitioner has directly filed instant writ petition before this Court, hence, the same is not maintainable on account of alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Operative part
Having considered the issue involved in the instant writ petition and contention put forth by State counsel, since there is efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petitioner invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, hence, this petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stand disposed of. AMIT KUMAR DUBEY KUMAR DUBEY 12:29:46 +0530 Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 — ss. 9, 12(5).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.