Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/2715/2021 of DALIT KUMAR KURRE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 8 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43819 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2715 of 2021 1 - Dalit Kumar Kurre S/o Late Shri Kamdeo Kurre Aged About 43 Years R/o Vikas Nagar/ Sheetalapara, Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Manoj Kumar Banjare S/o Late Shri Kamdeo Kurre Aged About 28
CGHC010142052021
2026:CGHC:43819
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2715 of 2021
1 - Dalit Kumar Kurre S/o Late Shri Kamdeo Kurre Aged About 43 Years R/o Vikas Nagar/ Sheetalapara, Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Manoj Kumar Banjare S/o Late Shri Kamdeo Kurre Aged About 28 Years R/o Sanjada, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Naresh Kumar Banjare S/o Late Shri Kamdeo Kurre Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Lanjoda, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Radheshyam S/o Late Kamdeo Kurre Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Lanjoda, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 5 - Revenue Inspector Pharasagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 6 - Patwari Patwari Halka No. 28, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioners
:
Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
For State
:
Mr. Priyank Rathi, GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice
Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
09/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioners, in this Writ Petition, have prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to provide the some other land in place of the land of the petitioners which has been shown at present either playground of the education department or big brush forest and in alternative may kindly be directed to provide compensation of the land measuring area 5 acres to the petitioners. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ land bearing Khasra No. 1/27, admeasuring 5 acres, has been used by the respondent authorities for public purposes without providing any alternative land or compensation. He further submits that the respondents have neither given a specific reply to the petitioners’ claim nor provided any alternative land or compensation, therefore, this petition has been filed seeking appropriate relief.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that as per the reports of the revenue authorities, the petitioners were never in possession of the land in question, which is presently being used as a playground for the concerned school and for nistari purpose by the villagers. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, particularly the reports of the revenue authorities, it appears that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law, as the reports categorically state that the petitioners were never in possession of the land in question. The reports also indicate that the said land was earlier used as Gotlu and is presently being used as a playground for the concerned school and as a thoroughfare (Nistari) by the villagers. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Priyanka