CHUNURAM SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010264132026 2026:CGHC:38968
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3811 of 2026
1 - Chunuram Sahu S/o Awadhram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o
Village Darra Tahsil Kurud District- Dhamtari (C.G.).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Revenue
Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava, Raipur District- Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Collector Dhamtari District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
3 - Tahsildar Sirri District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Darra Block- Kurud, District- Dhamtari
(C.G.)
5 - Secretary Garm Panchayat Darra Block- Kurud District- Dhamtari
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : None.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
03/09/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for

2
the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner
from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.
10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to take
action against the illegal and arbitrary action of the
respondent no. 4.
10.3) That, the Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to make an
appropriate writ order for the compensations of the
damages.
10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court
may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances
kindly be granted.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has called in question
the illegal, arbitrary and unjustified action of respondent No. 4,
whereby the well-constructed residential house belonging to the
petitioner was demolished on 05.06.2025 without issuing any prior
notice to the petitioner and without affording him any reasonable
opportunity of hearing. It is the specific case of the petitioner that
respondent No. 4, in an arbitrary and high-handed manner,
proceeded to demolish the aforesaid residential house without
following the procedure prescribed under law and without granting
the petitioner any opportunity to raise his objections or to protect
his lawful rights and interest in respect of the property in question.
The petitioner further submits that, despite the demolition of his
residential house, no compensation whatsoever has been paid or
offered to him towards the loss and damage suffered by him on

3
account of such demolition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
action of respondent No. 4, the petitioner has approached this
Court seeking appropriate relief against the alleged illegal and
arbitrary action and for issuance of suitable directions in
accordance with law.
3. None appears for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that a civil suit in
respect of the very same property is already pending
consideration before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. It is, therefore,
contended that, in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings
involving the property in question, the relief sought by the
petitioner in the present writ petition cannot appropriately be
adjudicated upon by this Court and the petitioner may be
relegated to pursue his remedy before the competent Civil Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the State and having perused the
material available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, in
particular, taking into consideration the fact that a civil suit in
respect of the very same property is already pending before the
Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kurud, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, this Court is of the considered view that
the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present
proceedings. The petitioner is, accordingly, relegated to pursue his
remedy before the concerned Civil Court, where the dispute

4
relating to the property in question is already pending
consideration. It is open to the petitioner to raise all such grounds
and contentions as may be available to him in law before the said
Court.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case or on the rival claims of the parties, as the
dispute in respect of the property in question is already seized of
by the competent Civil Court. The learned Civil Court shall,
therefore, consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance
with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the
present order.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge

Raghu Jat