Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/2942/2026 of RAMASHANKAR YADAV Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 4 October 2026
2026:CGHC:42906 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2942 of 2026 1 - Ramashankar Yadav S/o Lage Mahaveer Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ramanujganj District Ramanujganj Balrampur C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary
CGHC010184552026
2026:CGHC:42906
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2942 of 2026
1 - Ramashankar Yadav S/o Lage Mahaveer Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ramanujganj District Ramanujganj Balrampur C.G.
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Secretary Revenue Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G.
2 - Collector Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
3 - Sub Divisional Office Revenue Ramanujganj District Balrampur
4 - Tahsildar Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
5 - Amrendra Gupta S/o Late Nandlal Gupta Aged About 51 Years Respondent No. 5 To 7 Are R/o Ward No. -9, Ramanujganj Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
6 - Arvind Gupta S/o Late Nandlal Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. - 9, Ramanujganj Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur
7 - Alok Gupta S/o Late Nandlal Gupta Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. -9, Ramanujganj Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur
Ramanujganj C.G.
8 - Sharvan Prajapti S/o Sitaram Prajapati Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. -1 Ramanujganj Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
... Respondents
(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)
For Petitioner
:
Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate.
For State
:
Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad.
Order on Board
05.10.2026
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. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 22.04.2026 passed by respondent No. 3/ Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) in Revenue Case vide its Case No. 202412271300/27 parties being Ramashankar Yadav Vs. Amrendra Gupta and others. The petitioner is seeking for following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 Set-aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3. 10.3 Direct the respondent No. 3 to dispossess the private respondent No. 5 to 8 from the disputed land and further be pleased to direct to record/enter the aforesaid land in the government head of revenue record. 10.4 Grant any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of the petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Cost of the petition.”
2. At the outset, Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the law against the impugned order dated 22.04.2026 passed by respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur (C.G.). He, therefore, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to avail the said alternative remedy by filing a duly constituted appeal/revision before the competent authority.
3. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with the liberty as prayed for.
4. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal/revision before the competent authority within a period of ten days. In the event the petitioner files an application under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
The certified copy of this order be returned to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy thereof on record.
5. No order as to costs. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju