Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 03‑08‑2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Smt. Namita Rishi, age about 54, Punjabi caste, residing near Petrol Pump, Mungeli Road, Minocha Colony, Civil Line, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents: 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Bilaspur; 2) Municipal Corporation Bilaspur through Commissioner; 3) Building Officer, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur.
  • Land in dispute: Khasra No. 1632/1, area 0.1210 hectares, Village‑Mangla, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, purchased by petitioner via registered sale deed dated 09‑10‑2020. Adjacent land Khasra No. 1552 is Government land earmarked as a road.
  • Petitioner’s reliefs sought: (i) Call for entire record; (ii) Direct respondents to leave petitioner’s land as per demarcation report and construct drainage away from it; (iii) Compensate petitioner for illegal drainage construction; (iv) Any other appropriate relief.
  • Background facts:
  • Earlier demarcation dispute led to W.P.(C) No. 5596 of 2022; Court ordered proper demarcation on 15‑12‑2022.
  • Additional Collector, finding defects, ordered fresh demarcation on 06‑07‑2023.
  • Court directed Municipal Corporation to cooperate (W.P.(C) No. 3392 of 2023) and restrained drainage construction in related writs (W.P.(C) Nos. 3663 & 3722 of 2023).
  • Despite fresh demarcation report, respondents on 08‑03‑2024 demolished part of petitioner’s boundary wall and constructed drainage over her private land, leaving similarly situated owners untouched.
  • Petitioner objected on site, cited demarcation report and court orders, but construction continued; she lodged a complaint with the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation.
  • Respondents’ contentions: Claim petitioner is an encroacher on Government land; many adjoining owners have similar encroachments; drainage alignment is based on technical and engineering considerations; disputed factual issues (title, possession, demarcation) cannot be decided in a writ petition; petitioner abandoned civil remedy and should pursue civil suit for relief.
  • State counsel’s submission: Action taken by authorities is lawful; disputed questions of fact preclude writ jurisdiction; petition lacks merit.
  • Judicial precedents cited:
  • A.P. Electrical Equipment Corp. vs. Tahsildar (2025 SCC Online SC 447) – writ courts may investigate disputed facts when justice requires.
  • State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (AIR 1967 SC 1269) – High Court may decide factual questions in writ petitions at its discretion.
  • Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality (1969 3 SCC 769) – High Court may decline to decide complex factual disputes but is not barred from jurisdiction.
  • State of U.P. v. Ehsan (2023 INSC 906) – Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar; writ court should decide on merits unless facts are too contested.
  • Court’s reasoning: The core controversy concerns correctness of demarcation of Government land (Khasra 1552), alignment of proposed drainage, and alleged encroachment. These are factual disputes that, given earlier directives for demarcation and the need for justice, warrant a fresh survey rather than dismissal.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent Revenue Authority shall undertake a fresh demarcation of Khasra 1552 and adjoining lands, including the petitioner’s property, after issuing notice to the petitioner, Municipal Corporation, and all affected landowners.
  • The fresh demarcation must consider revenue records, maps, field books, and identify existing road alignment and proposed drainage.
  • The demarcation exercise must be completed, as far as possible, within 90 days from receipt of a certified copy of this order.
  • All parties’ rights and contentions remain open; any further action on drainage construction or removal of alleged encroachments shall occur only after the demarcation is completed and strictly in accordance with law.
  • The Court made no finding on the merits of the competing claims.

Topics: Land Dispute, Drainage Construction