Coercive eviction stayed to allow petitioner to pursue alternative remedies amidst pending title dispute.

The petitioner purchased private land via a registered sale deed from one Devadas.

The respondent authorities subsequently sought to enter this land into Wajib-ul-Arz (record of village customs/rights), leading to an eviction (bedakhli) warrant dated 23.04.2026.

This warrant, served on 29.04.2026, directed the petitioner to vacate by 04.05.2026.

The petitioner challenged the eviction on the grounds that the title dispute regarding his predecessor (Devadas) is currently sub judice before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue.

The petitioner argued that the eviction violated principles of natural justice as he was not given adequate time to seek legal remedies.

1. Whether the respondent authorities can proceed with the eviction warrant while the underlying title and entry in Wajib-ul-Arz are under challenge before an appellate forum.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection from dispossession to pursue alternative statutory remedies.

The Court primarily applied the principle of "Alternative Statutory Remedy," which dictates that writ jurisdiction should generally not be exercised when an effective legal remedy exists before a competent forum or Board of Revenue.

It further emphasized the "Principles of Natural Justice," specifically the right to a fair opportunity to approach a legal forum before being subjected to coercive action (dispossession).

The Court observed that the core dispute involves the title and entitlement of the property, which is already pending consideration before a competent revenue forum.

Since the validity of the Wajib-ul-Arz entry has not attained finality, the Court reasoned that the petitioner must pursue his grievance through the existing alternative statutory machinery rather than the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

However, acknowledging the immediate threat of "irreparable prejudice" due to the impending eviction date, the Court determined that the petitioner required a "limited period" of protection to file necessary applications before the Board of Revenue.

It held that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue alternative statutory remedies before the appropriate forum.

The Court directed that no coercive steps (dispossession) shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the warrant dated 23.04.2026 for a limited period, provided the petitioner approaches the competent forum within the stipulated time.