HARVANSH DUBEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WA/360/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010121252026

Filing Number

WA/6962/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

WA/360/2026

Registration Date

16-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES: 2601 TO 2604 ( 26 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS. ( 2604 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARVANSH DUBEY

    Adv. RAHUL MISHRA,VIVEK SAHU,VIVEK SAHU, ,SHARDA PRASAD,VIVEK SAHU

  2. 2.Bhupnath Dubey

  3. 3.Virendranath Dubey

  4. 4.Devendranath Dubey

  5. 5.Vinod Dubey

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.State of Chhattisgarh

  3. 3.The Collector

  4. 4.The Commissioner

    Adv. BHUPENDRA SINGH

  5. 5.The Tahasildar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    Summary of WA/360/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed appellants' writ appeal challenging a single judge's dismissal of their petition seeking land settlement. The court held that since the appellants' title to the Nazul land (3.01 acres) is disputed, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit rather than writ proceedings, and declined to interfere with the single judge's order as it was consistent with an identical earlier decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/360/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WA/360/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed appellants' writ appeal challenging a single judge's dismissal of their petition seeking land settlement. The court held that since the appellants' title to the Nazul land (3.01 acres) is disputed, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit rather than writ proceedings, and declined to interfere with the single judge's order as it was consistent with an identical earlier decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case