Facts
The petitioner, claiming to be a fourth-generation lawful occupant of land held under a registered lease (Patta) granted in 2003 under the Chhattisgarh Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti Adhiniyam, 1984, alleged that respondent authorities illegally demolished her residential structure on 16.01.2026
Source reference: para. 4-5She contended the demolition was executed without prior notice, hearing, or a lawful order, utilizing heavy machinery and bulldozers
Source reference: para. 5The petitioner further alleged that the officials used abusive language and that the supervising officer was an unauthorized Data Entry Operator
Source reference: para. 6-7Consequently, she filed this writ petition seeking directions for the registration of an FIR, payment of interim compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-, and restoration of the structure
Source reference: para. 3Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR and grant compensation when alternative statutory remedies are available
Source reference: para. 8-9Law Applied
The Court applied the principle of "efficacious alternative remedy" regarding the registration of FIRs as established in *Waseem Haider vs. State of U.P.* (Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020) and the Chhattisgarh High Court’s own precedent in *Akhilesh Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh* (WPCR No. 333 of 2020)
Source reference: para. 8It further referred to the statutory framework for judicial intervention in criminal investigations under Section 156(3) and Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., now corresponding to Section 175(3) and Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Source reference: para. 8-9Reasoning
The Court evaluated the petitioner's grievances against the availability of statutory procedures.
Source reference: no citationWhile the petitioner alleged violations of Article 21 (Right to Shelter) and Article 300A (Right to Property) due to high-handed administrative action, the Court accepted the State’s contention that the grievance could be adequately addressed by a competent Magistrate
Source reference: para. 6, 8The Court reasoned that since the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides a specific mechanism for citizens to seek the registration of a case or file a complaint when the police fail to act, the petitioner must exhaust these specialized remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226
Source reference: para. 9-10Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available
The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the registration of an FIR or other related reliefs
Source reference: para. 10No specific orders for compensation or restoration were passed
Source reference: para. 10Original Court PDF
Babita Giri v. Urban State Administration and Development & Others [2026:CGHC:11366-DB]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in