Bhimrao Sontake v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Ms. Gayatri Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Municipal Corporation, : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Raipur 13 For Respondent No. 9 in Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriay, WPC No. 2172/2020, WPC Advocate. No. 2142/2020, WPC No. 2274/2020, WPC No. 2586/2020 and WPC No. 2596/2020. For Intervenor : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/04/2026

1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 2172/2020 (Bhimrao Sontake vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “(i) Pass an order directing an enquiry and appropriate action against the illegal demolition of the petitioner's house in khasra no. 772/2 Patwari Halka No. 52, Village Chirhuldih, Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 14 (ii) Pass an order directing compensation to the tune of Rupees one lakh for illegal demolition of the petitioner's house. (iii) Pass an order directing the respondents to issue leasehold rights to the petitioner over land occupied by them in khasra no. 772/2 Patwari Halka No. 52, Village Chirhuldih, Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.); (iv) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case, that, the petitioner, a landless person, has been residing in Raipur along with his family and earns his livelihood as an auto driver, owing to his indigent circumstances, he constructed a modest dwelling upon government land bearing Khasra No. 772/2, Patwari Halka No. 52, situated at Village Chirhuldih, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.), and has been in continuous possession thereof since the year 1999. In support of his long-standing residence and identity, the petitioner has placed on record a true copy of his identity card dated 02.02.2003 issued by the Election Commission of India, along with tax receipts issued by the Raipur Municipal Corporation and his ration card. It is further submitted that in the surrounding area comprising Khasra Nos. 772/2 to 772/4, several similarly situated persons have been residing for years, and approximately fifteen families, including that of the petitioner, have constructed dwelling houses thereon. As per the revenue records, Khasra No. 772/2 is 15 government land, Khasra No. 772/3 is also government land acquired under the Ceiling Act, and Khasra No. 772/4 is likewise recorded as government land. Despite the same, about seven families, including the petitioner, have been issued notices alleging encroachment on land purportedly claimed by one Kamlesh Tiwari, S/o Durga Prasad Tiwari, Director of Nexus Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., though, in fact, neither the said individual nor the said company holds any ownership over Khasra Nos. 772/2 to 772/4, and their ownership is confined only to adjacent land bearing Khasra No. 772/1, as evidenced by revenue records. It is respectfully submitted that the said private respondent, in collusion with the authorities, is attempting to unlawfully dispossess the petitioner and other similarly placed families who have been in settled possession for more than two decades, and is falsely asserting ownership over government land which, in accordance with law and policy, ought to have been regularized or settled in favour of such occupants. It is further submitted that pursuant to notice dated 07.07.2020 issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Raipur, the petitioner was directed to appear on 22.07.2020 at 11:00 AM to show cause regarding the alleged encroachment; however, due to the prevailing lockdown, the matter was adjourned to 25.08.2020, and during the pendency of the proceedings, the private respondent, along with his associates, illegally and forcibly demolished the petitioner’s house on

19.08.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner promptly lodged a 16 complaint dated 24.08.2020 before the Collector, Raipur, bringing to notice the arbitrary and unlawful demolition of his dwelling, thereby depriving him and his family of shelter without due process of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in all the petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the actions of the respondent authorities, who have either threatened them, dispossessed them, or demolished the houses in which they have been residing. She further submits that the matter pertains to alleged encroachment upon government land, on which the petitioners have constructed their houses and have been residing for the past two to three decades. It is also submitted that the petitioners have already filed appropriate applications before the competent authorities seeking consideration for settlement of the land in their favour and for the grant of pattas to each of them in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nagriya Kshetron Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984.

5. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, submits that the petitioners are encroachers upon government land and that the subject land falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. It is contended that, even if the petitioners seek any relief by way of filing applications for settlement of the land, they are required to approach the competent authority, namely the concerned Collector, and not this Hon’ble Court, as an 17 efficacious alternative remedy is available to them under the law. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not availed themselves of such alternative remedy, and in the event they have already approached the competent authorities, they may be directed to pursue their remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitions, as framed and filed before this Hon’ble Court, are not maintainable. It is contended that if the petitioners seek the grant of patta/lease or protection of their possession, they are required to approach the competent authorities in accordance with the remedies available under the Revenue Book Circular. However, instead of availing themselves of the aforesaid statutory remedies, the petitioners have directly approached this Court, albeit in the year 2020, and therefore, on this ground alone, the petitions are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Leelavathi N. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 2253, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “35. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579, has held as under:

37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a 18 petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.

38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.”

9. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioners is that they are in occupation of the land in dispute, which the respondents claim to be government land; the petitioners themselves do not assert ownership over the said land. However, it is their consistent submission that they have been in long-standing possession of the land in question and 19 have constructed residential houses thereon, wherein they are residing along with their family members. It has further been contended that the petitioners have submitted appropriate applications before the competent authorities seeking grant of lease/patta, which are yet to be decided, and in the meantime, they have been subjected to threats of dispossession; in some cases, the petitioners have already been dispossessed. In these circumstances, it is submitted that appropriate relief, as sought by the petitioners, deserves to be granted.

10. From a perusal of the reliefs sought, it appears that the same cannot be granted by this Court, as they involve disputed questions of fact which are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction. Further, if the petitioners have already approached the competent authorities for grant of lease/patta, they are required to pursue the remedies available to them under the law; accordingly, the petitioners are directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy. However, considering that the present petitions have been pending since the year 2020, it is deemed appropriate, while disposing of these writ petitions, to direct the concerned authorities to decide the applications of the petitioners within a period of 90 days from the date of their approach along with a copy of this order. It is further directed that, in cases where any of the petitioners continue to remain in possession pursuant to interim protection granted by this Court, such petitioners shall not be dispossessed until their applications are decided by the competent authorities within the stipulated period. 20

11. The petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate applications, in accordance with law, if the same have not already been filed, within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12. Each and every respondent is at liberty to approach the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievances, in accordance with the procedure established under law.

13. With this observation and direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. Raghu Jat Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge