YOGESH KUMAR SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010253932023 2026:CGHC:45606
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3541 of 2023
Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Punit Ram Sahu, Caste Teli, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Aamvari, Tehsil Charama, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary- Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
3 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Charama, District North Bastar Kanker
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Tehsildar, Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
5 - Ram Singh S/o Renjwa Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Aanwari, Tehsil
Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
6 - Chaitu Ram S/o Renjwa, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Aanwari, Tehsil
Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
Digitally
signed by
SHYNA
AJAY
Date:
2026.10.30
10:56:18
+0530
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
SHYNA
AJAY

2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate
For Respondent/State
: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.5
Mr. DN Prajapati, Advocate
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
28/10/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to set aside the impugned order dated
22-03-2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
Board of Revenue.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be
please the direct to respondent authorities to
vacate the land of the petitioner from the illegal
encroachment made by respondent No. 5 and 6,
in the interest of justice.
10.3 That the Hon'ble Court further pleased to
grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit
and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on
31.12.2019, the petitioner, who is the owner of the land bearing
Khasra No.375/2 Raqba 0.19 hec. situated at Village Charama,
filed an application under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue

3
Code (in short “the Code”) before the Tehsildar for demarcation of
his land. On receipt of the demarcation report by the Revenue
Inspector (Annexure P/3), the Tehsildar dismissed the application
on 29.10.2020 on the ground that the private respondents had
been in possession for 30-35 years. The petitioner's subsequent
statutory challenges i.e. a first appeal before the concerned
SDO(R) and a second appeal before the Commissioner came to
be dismissed and ultimately, a revision preferred before the Board
of Revenue was also dismissed. It is contended that during the
proceedings, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 expanded their
encroachment by attempting temporary construction (bird farm),
leading the Tehsildar to issue stay orders dated 31.12.2019 and
20.01.2022. Furthermore, a Certificate dated 22.02.2022 issued
by Gram Panchayat Aanvari affirms the ownership of the
petitioner and states that the encroachment occurred only 2 to 2½
years prior. Hence, this Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
challenging the order dated 22.03.2023, whereby the revision
preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was
dismissed on the ground that the respondents have been in
occupation of the land in question for 35 years and the petitioner
did not file the application under Section 250 of the Code within
two years of dispossession, rendering the application non-
maintainable.

4
4. At this stage, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 submits that
the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit for declaration of
title and possession filed way back on 12.09.2023. He submits
that since the dispute is already subjudice before the competent
Civil Court, the petitioner ought to pursue his remedies before the
Civil Court instead.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the opinion that since the petitioner has already instituted a civil
suit, the petitioner is relegated to pursue his remedies before the
concerned Civil Court. Accordingly, no interference is warranted
with the impugned order, which is perfectly just and proper.
7. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to pursue the pending civil suit for
declaration of title and possession. It is made clear that any
observations made by the revenue courts or by this Court shall
not bind the concerned Civil Court, which shall proceed to
adjudicate the matter on its own merits in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge