BIRANCHI CHAUDHARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed by
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.09.02
11:01:42 +0530
1

CGHC010173962025 2026:CGHC:38551-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 305 of 2025
1 - Biranchi Chaudhari S/o Hiralal Chaudhari Aged About 47 Years R/o
Ahead of Railway Crossing, Ward No. 50, Borsibhata, Durg, District-
Durg (C.G.)
2 - Jivan Yadav S/o Kartik Yadav Aged About 43 Years (Wrongly
mentioned as Kranti Yadav), R/o Ahead of Railway Crossing, Ward No.
50, Borsibhata, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.)
3 - Smt. Asha Sahu W/o Late Hemat Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o
Ahead of Railway Crossing, Ward No. 50, Borsibhata, Durg, District -
Durg (C.G.)
4 - Kunj Sahu S/o Late Ganesh Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ahead
of Railway Crossing, Ward No. 50, Borsibhata Durg, District - Durg
(C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Urban
Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District -
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Collector Durg, District - Durg (C.G.)
3 - Nagar Palika Nigam Durg Through Commissioner Durg, District -
Durg (C.G.)

2
4 - Smt. Suman Nadesan Unni W/o K. Srishanan Unni Aged About 56
Years R/o Quarter No. 4/A Street No. 35, Sector - 10, Bhilai District -
Durg (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Bhaskar Jha and Mr. Tapan Kumar
Chandra, Advocates.
For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Jha and Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned
counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Pryank Rathi, learned
Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 as
well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3.
2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following
relief(s):-
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow
this appeal and set aside the
impugned order dated 28.04.2025
passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge
of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C)
No.2132/2025 and also set aside the
impugned notice dated 24.04.2025
issued by the Nagar Nigam Durg, in
the interest of justice.”

3
3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition (C) No.2132/2025 (Biranchi Chaudhari Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants/writ
petitioners had earlier filed WPC No.1787/2025, which was
disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025, directing them to
approach the concerned authorities with an appropriate
application and relevant documents by 11.04.2025, and directing
the authorities to consider the same by 24.04.2025. Pursuant
thereto, the authorities issued notice dated 24.04.2025, which was
challenged by the appellants in WPC No.2132/2025. The said
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 28.04.2025, holding that filing a subsequent petition on the
same cause of action amounted to an abuse of the process of
law. It is contended that the notice dated 24.04.2025 gave rise to
a fresh cause of action and, therefore, the order dated 28.04.2025
is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits
that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of
the matter, has rightly passed impugned order dated 28.04.2025
in WPC No.2132/2025, which does not call for any interference by
this Court.

4
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as materials available on record.
7. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, the learned Single Judge has observed in the
impugned order dated 28.04.2025 that:-
“ 3 From perusal of the records, it seems that this is a
second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioners have
approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing
WPC No.1787/2025, which was disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 08.04.2025, observing as
follows :-
“5. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, though earlier notices were
issued to the petitioners by the Nagar Palika
Nigam, Durg on several occasions, however,
the petitioners were failed to produce any
documents in respect of their entitlement and
possession. This Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has passed an order dated 24.02.2025
passed in WPC No.1035/2025 by which a
direction was issued to the concerned
Collector, Durg to take appropriate steps in
respect of illegal encroachment made over the
grass land situated in Village-Borsi bearing
Khasra No. 194/1.
6. Since notice has been issued in
pursuance of order dated 24.03.2025 as such
the petitioners are given a liberty to approach

5
before the concerned Nagar Palika Nigam,
Durg while filing appropriate application along
with the relevant documents on which they
are claiming their entitlement over the dispute
land. This be done within a period of 2 days
and, in turn, the concerned authorities
especially respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 are
directed to consider the case of the petitioners
and to decide the same in accordance with
law.
7. Though the petitioners are
encroachers but even if they are encroachers
they are required to be heard and if after
hearing petitioners are failed to produce any
documents the concerned respondent
authorities are directed to pass appropriate
orders for eviction and to take appropriate
action.
8. The petitioners are directed to file an
appropriate application before the concerned
respondent authorities along with relevant
th
documents by 11 of April, 2025, and, in turn,
the concerned respondent authorities are
th
directed to consider the same by 24 of April,
2025.
9. With this observation and direction,
the writ petition stands disposed of.”
4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the fact that on the same cause of action,
earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioners, which

6
was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025 directing
the petitioners to file an appropriate application before
the concerned respondent authorities along with
th
relevant documents by 11 of April, 2025, and, in turn,
the concerned respondent authorities were directed to
th
consider the same by 24 of April, 2025, this Court is of
the opinion that for the same cause of action, this
second petition cannot be entertained. Once the order
has been passed, the petitioners should have
approached before the authorities for redressal of their
grievance. Filing of consequent petition will not make out
any new case. The subsequent filing of petition on the
same cause of action is an abuse of process of law,
which is not permissible.
5 In the result, instant writ petition lacks merit substance,
is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.”
8. The contention of the petitioners is that, in pursuance of the order
dated 08.04.2025 passed by the writ Court in WPC No.1787 of
2025 the petitioners had presented their representation, but the
representation was not decided by the competent authority and
notice dated 24.04.2025 was issued to them, but learned Single
Judge while dismissing the present writ petition vide impugned
order dated 28.04.2025 held that for the same cause of action,
this second petition cannot be entertained and has not considered
the issuance of notice dated 24.04.2025.

7
9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, we find no infirmity in the
impugned order dated 28.04.2025. The earlier writ petition, WPC
No.1787/2025, was disposed of on 08.04.2025 with liberty to the
appellants to submit their representation along with relevant
documents before the competent authority and with a direction to
the authorities to consider the same by 24.04.2025. Admittedly,
pursuant thereto, the appellants submitted their representation,
which was followed by the notice dated 24.04.2025. In the
circumstances, the appellants ought to have pursued the remedy
before the competent authority instead of instituting a second writ
petition on the same subject matter. Mere issuance of the
subsequent notice did not give rise to an independent cause of
action so as to maintain a fresh writ petition.
10. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single
Judge has rightly dismissed WPC No.2132 of 2025 as an abuse
of the process of law, and the impugned order does not warrant
any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present writ
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil