The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms that only parties directly connected to the original proceedings (or their legal representatives) can seek writ relief for enforcement of revenue orders; residents with grievances have alternative statutory remedies under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. This judgment upholds established procedural precedent and guides future revenue litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5684/2025 of RAGHUVANSHMANI KHAIRWAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010461852025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Revenue Law / Land Demarcation / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that a writ petition for enforcement of a revenue demarcation order cannot be maintained by a person who was neither a party nor a legal representative in the original proceedings. If any resident has grievances regarding non-conduct of demarcation, the appropriate remedy lies under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. As such, the writ petition was dismissed, reaffirming established principles of locus standi and the hierarchy of remedies in land revenue disputes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a resident of the area, sought mandamus for enforcement of a demarcation order over government grassland. The State objected, stating petitioner was not a party nor legal representative to the proceedings resulting in the order. The court agreed such a writ was not maintainable and pointed petitioner to pursue redress under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar locus standi and remedy issues in revenue matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ remedy is unavailable to residents lacking direct party status or legal representative status in underlying revenue proceedings.
- Emphasizes the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for aggrieved non-parties.
- Counsel must assess client’s locus standi and guide towards the proper statutory forum before approaching writ jurisdiction in land/revenue matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioner was neither a party to the original demarcation proceedings nor a legal representative of any such party.
- State counsel objected to maintainability on these grounds.
- The court accepted the objection, holding that the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of orders to which he is not directly related.
- Noted that if any resident is aggrieved regarding non-demarcation, the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides an efficacious statutory remedy.
- Consequently, writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum, and the petition was dismissed accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Filed petition as a resident of the area seeking enforcement of the demarcation order and investigation.
Respondent (State)
Objected on grounds that petitioner was neither a party to the proceedings nor a legal representative of any party named in the order.
Factual Background
- The petitioner, a resident of Village Mendra, moved the High Court seeking mandamus against revenue officers to enforce an earlier order regarding demarcation of government grassland.
- The order in question related to Khasra No. 374/1 (area 1.14 acres).
- The State objected to locus standi, stating petitioner was not part of the relevant proceedings.
- The court, agreeing with the State, dismissed the petition and pointed the petitioner to statutory redress.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment references the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 as providing an efficacious remedy for grievances related to land demarcation.
- No interpretation or expansion of specific statutory provisions is discussed; the emphasis is procedural, regarding availability of remedies.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines are laid down in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms long-settled principles regarding locus standi and statutory remedies in writ jurisdiction.