Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/763/2022 of SANJAY JAIN Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 21 September 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 763 of 2022 1 - Sanjay Jain S/o Shri Sampat Lal Jain Aged About 46 Years R/o Linepara, Nagri, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anil Jain S/o Shri Sampat Lal Jain Aged About 51 Years
CGHC010049182022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 763 of 2022
1 - Sanjay Jain S/o Shri Sampat Lal Jain Aged About 46 Years R/o Linepara, Nagri, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
2 - Anil Jain S/o Shri Sampat Lal Jain Aged About 51 Years R/o Linepara, Nagri, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Board Of Revenue Through The President Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Commissioner Raipur, Division Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tahsildar Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6 - Yogesh Kumar Nahata S/o Pokharaaj Nahata Aged About 58 Years R/o Nahata Chowk, Nagari, Tahsil - Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
Digitally
signed
by AMIT
PATEL
(Cause title taken from CIS system)
For Petitioners
:
Mr. Ankur Agrawal , Advocate
For State
:
Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, PL
For Respondent No. 6 :
Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026
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 petitioners have filed this petition with the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the position of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased quash the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) consequently the order dated 03.04.2019 and 31.10.2015 also be quashed upholding the order dated 28.09.2016. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts of circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by way of the instant petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 in Revision Case No. R.N./04/R/A 70/65/2019, whereby the revision preferred by the present petitioners came to be dismissed. It is submitted that Respondent No. 6, the private respondent, filed an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, alleging that the present petitioners had encroached upon his land bearing Khasra No. 1085. It is further alleged that out of the total area of 0.22 hectare, the petitioners had encroached upon an area admeasuring 0.04 hectare. The learned Tahsildar, upon consideration of the said application, allowed the same. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tahsildar, the petitioners preferred a challenge before the competent authority. However, the said authority rejected the challenge, pursuant to which the matter was carried further before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, by the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed in Revision Case No. R.N./04/R/A 70/65/2019, dismissed the revision preferred by the present petitioners and affirmed the order passed by the subordinate authorities. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue is well-reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is submitted that the revenue authorities, upon due consideration of the material available on record, have concurrently found encroachment by the petitioners over the land bearing Khasra No. 1085. No ground for interference under the writ jurisdiction is, therefore, made out. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that all the revenue authorities, except the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), have passed concurrent orders under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, holding that the petitioner is in occupation of the land belonging to Respondent No. 6. In view of such concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
5. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed, however liberty is granted to the petitioners to pursue an alternative remedy by filing a civil suit in accordance with law. SD/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL