Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/2116/2021 of KALEEM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 24 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2116 of 2021 1 - Kaleem S/o Mohd. Ayub Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Village Junapara, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Urban
CGHC010105072021
2026:CGHC:41744
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2116 of 2021
1 - Kaleem S/o Mohd. Ayub Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Village Junapara, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Collector, Koriya, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Tahsildar, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate
For Respondent /State
: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L.
For Respondent No.3
: Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RUCHI
YADAV
Digitally
signed by
RUCHI YADAV
25/09/2026
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 the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set- aside the impugned order dated 11-02-2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby illegally without land acquisition proceeding, the work order has been issued for construction of CC Road over the land of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to initiate land acquisition proceeding and award just compensation to the petitioner in lieu of his land used by the respondents for construction of road. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of compensation for the land of petitioner and for the mental agony and the cost of demolition done to the superstructure made by the petitioner. 10.4 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 224, 225 and 226, admeasuring 0.23 hectare, situated at Ward No. 16, Junapara, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). On an application submitted by certain residents of the locality, the Tahsildar, in Revenue Case No. 1/A-13/2016-17, passed an order dated 02.03.2017 holding that the aforesaid land belonged to the petitioner but was being used as a public road, and directed removal of the boundary constructed over the said land. The said order was challenged before the SDO, who, vide order dated 27.02.2021, set aside the order of the Tahsildar and held the land to be private land of the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 issued a work order dated 11.02.2021 for construction of a CC road over the land in question. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 17.03.2021. Meanwhile, construction of the road commenced and the boundary/construction existing over the land was demolished. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action and the construction of the road over the land in question, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking appropriate reliefs, including compensation.
3. In view of the return filed by respondent No. 3, wherein it has been categorically stated that the proposal to acquire the petitioner's land for construction of the road has been dropped and that the road has instead been constructed at an altogether different location, the grievance of the petitioner no longer survives.
4. Considering the aforesaid submission and the contents of the return filed by respondent No. 3, particularly paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 thereof, this Court is of the opinion that no grievance raised by the petitioner subsists.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of in view of the stand taken by respondent No. 3 in its return. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi