Writ Petition is Dismissed for Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy Under Industrial Land Management Rules.

The petitioner, owner of an industrial unit "M/s Natural Fuels" in Urla, Raipur, applied for the allotment of approximately 3500 sq. meters of adjoining industrial land.

By an order dated 11.03.2026, the respondent authorities restricted the allotment to only 15% of the petitioner’s original allotment and rejected the claim for the remaining area.

Consequently, the respondents issued notices on 07.05.2026, 15.05.2026, and 21.05.2026 for the removal of alleged unauthorized occupation and demolition of structures on the disputed land.

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, claiming they were issued without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedies available under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Land & Building Management Rules, 2015.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection against eviction notices while pursuing statutory remedies.

Chhattisgarh Industrial Land & Building Management Rules, 2015, specifically Clauses 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, which provide for the statutory remedies of review before the competent authority and appeal, respectively.

The principle of judicial restraint under Article 226 of the Constitution, where discretionary jurisdiction is generally not exercised when an efficacious statutory remedy exists.

The High Court declined to adjudicate the case on its merits due to the existence of an alternative remedy.

The respondents argued that the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 is squarely appealable or reviewable under the 2015 Rules.

While the petitioner alleged violations of Clauses 3.1.2.2 and 3.1.2.3 of the Rules regarding land access, the Court noted that these factual and legal disputes are best addressed by the specialized statutory authorities.

the Court recognized that the writ petition was filed on 25.05.2026, which was within the limitation period for statutory filings; therefore, the petitioner should not be penalized for the time spent litigating in the High Court.

The Court directed that if the petitioner files a review or appeal within 10 days, the competent authority must decide it on merits within 30 days without rejecting it on the ground of limitation.

The Court granted interim protection, ordering that no coercive steps or demolition be taken pursuant to the impugned notices for a period of 40 days to allow the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.