1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1544 of 2021 1 - Ashish Sharma S/o Late Shri Shashi Kant Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o Sanjaya Complex, M. G. Road, Raigarh District And Tehsil Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Municipal Corporation Raigarh Through Its Commissioner, Having Office At Nagar Nigam Building Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Nazul Officer Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 20.04.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the notice-cum-order dated 26.02.2021 issued by respondent No. 2 (Municipal Corporation, Raigarh), whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the alleged unauthorized construction, failing which demolition action was proposed. 2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is in possession of land situated behind Sanjay Complex, Raigarh, and is running a grocery shop/warehouse over a portion admeasuring approximately 350 sq. ft. out of a larger holding. It is contended that the petitioner and his family are in possession of the said land for more than four decades and are earning their livelihood from the said premises. It is further stated that the petitioner has been regularly paying taxes to the Municipal Corporation. On 26.02.2021, respondent No. 2 issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within seven days, failing which demolition action would be taken. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court, by order dated 10.03.2021, granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and 3 direct the Respondents to produce entire records pertaining to the present case for its kind perusal. II. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondents more particularly to Respondent No. 2by directing him to submit a detailed plan with respect to grant of just and fair compensation as well as adequate alternative arrangement for the Petitioner before implementation of any development plan near Sanjay MarketRaigarh, (C.G.). III. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondents setting aside the impugned notice dated 26.02.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to not take action with regards to the disputed land, till the pendency of this writ petition before the Hon'ble Court. IV. That, any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be to direct the respondent authorities to compensate the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity. V. That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioner. ” 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner has been in settled possession of the subject premises for more than 48 years and is earning his livelihood therefrom. It is further submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned notice. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent Municipal Corporation has acted without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the land in question is Nazul land and the competent authority to take action would be the Collector/Nazul Officer. It is further contended that the State Government policy dated 11.09.2019 has not been adhered to, and the proposed action of demolition without providing rehabilitation or following due process of law is wholly unsustainable. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned notice is merely a preliminary notice issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain his position and to produce relevant documents in support of his claim. It is further contended that no final adverse order has been passed against the petitioner as yet, and adequate opportunity is available to him to place his case before the competent authority. On these grounds, it is submitted that the present writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that this Court, by order dated 10.03.2021, had granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner. Upon perusal of the impugned notice dated 26.02.2021, it appears that the same is in the nature of a show cause notice requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises and/or produce relevant documents with regard to his occupation/possession. At this stage, no final adjudication determining the rights of the parties has been made by the respondent authority. It is well settled that ordinarily writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be invoked against a show cause notice, unless the same is wholly without jurisdiction or suffers from patent illegality. 8. In the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted an opportunity to submit his explanation along with relevant documents before the competent authority, and the authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. At the same time, considering that the petitioner has been granted interim protection by this Court, it would be appropriate to continue the said protection till a decision is taken by the competent authority. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall appear before respondent No. 2 (Municipal Corporation, Raigarh) and submit all relevant 6 documents in support of his claim within a reasonable time. Upon submission of such documents, the respondent authority shall verify the same and afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2021 shall continue to operate till the final decision is taken by the competent authority. It is further observed that in the event any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent authority/forum in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha