GOVIND SINGH BHADORIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010063812023 2026:CGHC:38407
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 992 of 2023
1 - Govind Singh Bhadoriya S/o Ram Mohan Bhadoriya Aged About 50
Years R/o Village Nakulnar, Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar
Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Collector South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Collector, Sukma District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manohar Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
31/08/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow the writ petition and be pleased to make an direct the
respondent order/direction authorities to provide the equal
value land to the petitioner which has been acquired.

2
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
the writ petition and direct the respondent authorities to
decide the representation.
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioners
together with cost of the petition.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner may kindly be granted liberty to avail the appropriate
alternative remedy by filing an appeal/revision before the
competent authority against the order dated 03.01.2009, in
accordance with law, and to ventilate all the grievances raised in
the present petition before the said authority.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the
order dated 03.01.2009 was passed as far back as in the year
2009 and the same has not been challenged by the petitioner
before any competent forum for a considerable period of time. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court
only in the year 2023, after an inordinate and unexplained delay.
Learned counsel for the State, referring to the records available
with the respondent/State, submits that the agricultural land
belonging to the petitioner was acquired/taken over and, with the
consent of the petitioner, equivalent value of Nazul land was
allotted to him. Although the area of the Nazul land allotted to the
petitioner is not equivalent to the area of the agricultural land

3
taken from him, the value of the Nazul land allotted is stated to be
equivalent to the value of the agricultural land in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted at this
belated stage.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have
carefully perused the pleadings, documents and other material
available on record.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, further,
taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner has also not
challenged the subsequent order dated 05.03.2011, which has a
bearing upon the grievance raised in the present petition. In the
absence of any challenge to the aforesaid order dated
05.03.2011, this Court is of the view that the grievance raised by
the petitioner may appropriately be considered by the competent
authority in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the
appropriate alternative remedy by filing an appeal/revision before
the competent authority having jurisdiction, against the order
dated 03.01.2009, and to ventilate all the grievances raised in the
present petition, including the grievance relating to the
subsequent order dated 05.03.2011, if permissible in law.
Needless to observe that, in the event the petitioner avails such
remedy, the competent authority shall consider and decide the

4
same strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, after
affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed
of .
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat