Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/1274/2023 of RAJENDRA NAIDU Vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 24 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1274 of 2023 1 - Rajendra Naidu S/o Shri V. Ganpat Rao Aged About 55 Years Occupation - Agriculturist And Mechanical Engineer Lathe Machine, R/o Village And Post - Anjoripali, Ward No. 1, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District :
CGHC010088762023
2026:CGHC:41809
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1274 of 2023
1 - Rajendra Naidu S/o Shri V. Ganpat Rao Aged About 55 Years Occupation
- Agriculturist And Mechanical Engineer Lathe Machine, R/o Village And Post
- Anjoripali, Ward No. 1, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.), Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Tahsildar, Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Shri Pushpendra Kumar Raj Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As In-Charge Tahsildar, Kharsiya, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chauhan Aged About 30 Years Presently Working As Patwari At P.H. No. 22, Patwari Office, Tahsil Office Premises Kharsiya, Tahsil
- Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)
For Petitioner
:
Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Counsel on behalf of Mr.
Roop Ram Naik, Advocate.
For State
:
Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 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. The petitioner, who claims to be the complainant/whistleblower, has filed the present petition, inter alia, alleging that the gross land in question is being settled in favour of Sindhi Samaj, Gabel Samaj, Kharsia, Raigarh (C.G.). However, the said Sindhi Samaj, Gabel Samaj, Kharsia, Raigarh (C.G.) has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the present petition. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already lodged a complaint before the competent authority in respect of the subject matter of the present petition. In view thereof, the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present proceedings. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased issue appropriate writ or order by directing the respondent state authority to initiate departmental and punitive proceeding against the respondent No. 5 and 6 and remove them from their respective post. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased issue appropriate writ or order by directing the respondent State authorities to not allot the government land (Gross land) bearing Khasra No. 577/1/A/1 area 11.6190 hector which is situated at Village Kharsiya, P.H. No. 22, Revenue Circle
Kharsiya, Tahsil-Kharsiya, District-Raigarh (C.G.) to any community. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased call the records of the case from the respondents authority. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief in favour of the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Since the reliefs sought by the petitioner directly concern the settlement/allotment of the aforesaid land in favour of Sindhi Samaj, Gabel Samaj, Kharsia, Raigarh (C.G.), the said entity is a necessary party for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the present petition. In the absence of such necessary party, no effective order in respect of the reliefs sought by the petitioner can be passed.
3. Ex consequenti, for non-impleadment of the necessary party, the present petition is not maintainable in its present form and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju