The Chhattisgarh High Court Division Bench clarifies that, when a writ petition is dismissed due to the petitioner’s admitted encroachment on government land and lack of ownership documents, the scope for interference in appeal is extremely limited. The ruling upholds existing precedent on restraining appellate courts from interfering unless the single judge’s decision reveals patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The judgment is binding in the State of Chhattisgarh as precedent for similar intra-court appeals involving encroachment and ownership disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/646/2025 of BABY FARIDA KHATUN Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010320532025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (Ramesh Sinha) |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court for similar factual and legal contexts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms dismissal by Single Judge in WPC No. 3631/2025; upholds standard for limited appellate interference in writ matters |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law (writs), Municipal law (encroachment, demolition), Appellate procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when a petitioner fails to produce any document proving ownership and admits to encroachment on government land, the single judge’s dismissal of the writ is proper. The scope of interference in intra-court appeals is limited only to exceptional cases involving patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In cases where the petitioner is an encroacher and no ownership claim is substantiated, no interference is warranted. Thus, writ appeals in such situations must be dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant’s house, claimed to be on private land, was partially demolished by municipal authorities for road widening. The appellant alleged lack of due process and risk of homelessness. Notices were issued, and the appellant did not produce ownership documents when required. The Single Judge dismissed the writ, citing lack of ownership proof and admission of encroachment. The Division Bench found no illegality in this dismissal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and single benches within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Division Benches of other High Courts on the scope of intra-court appellate review in writ matters |
| Follows | Upholds the implicit standard regarding appellate scrutiny in writ appeals—interference only for illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional defect |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that, in intra-court appeals against single judge orders on writ petitions, division benches have a narrowly confined power of interference (limited to illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error).
- Clarifies that petitioners who fail to produce ownership documents and admit encroachment cannot obtain relief in writ jurisdiction.
- Lawyers should ensure all ownership documentation is produced with the writ petition when contesting demolition on grounds of alleged encroachment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The division bench examined the record and found that the single judge properly dismissed the writ petition since the petitioner failed to produce any ownership documents and admitted to encroachment.
- The court reiterated that appellate interference in intra-court appeals can only occur in cases of patent illegality, gross perversity, or jurisdictional errors.
- On facts, there was neither any ownership proof nor a denial of encroachment, and thus no ground for setting aside the single judge’s order.
- The court held the appeal lacked merit and thus dismissed it without costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The single judge dismissed the writ petition without reply from respondents and without considering all material facts and documents.
- The primary prayer was for disposal of a pending representation after a hearing, so that ownership documents could be produced before the authorities.
- Dismissal was on presumptions and caused grave prejudice.
Respondents
- Only one room remained for demolition; rest had already been cleared.
- The single judge rightly dismissed the petition based on admitted facts and non-production of ownership documents.
- No error or illegality vitiated the single judge’s order.
Factual Background
The appellant, residing in Bilaspur, claimed continuous possession of her house for over sixty years on certain khasra numbers, which she said was not government or municipal land. Municipal authorities undertook demolition for road widening and issued fresh notices in June 2025 without alleged due process. The appellant asserted risk of homelessness and produced municipal tax and electricity receipts but no ownership documents. The writ petition challenging demolition was dismissed by the single judge; the current appeal was filed against that dismissal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court noted the issuance of notices under Sections 322/323 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 for demolition.
- The judgment did not engage in any expansive or restrictive interpretation of these or other constitutional provisions; the factual non-production of ownership documents by the appellant was dispositive.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or distinct concurring opinion was delivered; both judges concurred in upholding the dismissal.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new procedural directives are discussed or set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms existing limits on the scope of appellate interference in writ appeals and reinforces established principles regarding encroachment on government land.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44838-DB
- W.P.(C) No. 3631/2025 (Single Judge order affirmed in this appeal)