1 2025:CGHC:13556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1353 of 2025 1 - Sudhir Tandhi S/o Bahadur Tandhi Aged About 46 Years R/o Under Over Bridge, Amanaka, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Zone Commissioner Zone No. 7, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) .. Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate For State :- Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Respondents No. 4 & 5 :- Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 21.03.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction as to restrain the respondents from demolishing the shop of petitioner, which is the subject matter of the petition. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the oral direction of the respondents regarding demolition of the shop and the petitioner may allow to continue the said business in the said place. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for proper rehabilitation of the petitioner in a proper place if due to any necessity; the respondent authorities will have to remove the petitioner from the present place. 10.4 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is the only earning member of the family and he do not have any other source of his earnings other than this shop so his removal from the said shop would amount to severe financial crisis for his 3 family. It is stated that no any rehabilitation scheme is framed for the settlement of the petitioner as he is an auto mechanic by profession and he has established the shop under the Amanaka Over Bridge Raipur from the year 2010-11 and from that date, he is continuously doing his business in the said shop and is in peaceful possession over the said shop from 2010-11, which is in the knowledge of respondent authorities. It is also stated that for the purpose of doing the work in the said place, the petitioner has also taken electricity connection in the said place many years earlier and is doing the work. It is also submitted that the petitioner had earlier established his shop infront of Police Station Saraswati Nagar and was doing the work 15-20 of mechanic 25-30 years earlier from 2011 and the respondent No.4 while widening of road, instructed the petitioner to shift his shop from there to the present place i.e. Under Amanaka Over-bridge and as per the directions of respondent No.4, the petitioner was settled to the present place by the respondent No.4 itself. But some days earlier, the employees of respondents No.4 & 5 reached to the shop of petitioner and started saying him to remove the shop from the said place, so that the respondent No.4 would allot the said place to someone else. It is contended that from past about 25 years, the petitioner is doing the work of mechanic by establishing his shop, which was ultimately by making settlement was shifted to the present place of shop, but the respondent No.4 arbitrarily without authority of law and without following due procedure of law and 4 without giving any notice is presently trying to dispossess the petitioner from his present place of business, which is arbitrary and illegal. Some days earlier, the employees of the respondent No.4 came to the shop of petitioner by the vehicle of respondent No.4 and instructed the petitioner to remove his shop as soon as possible or they will forcefully destruct the shop of petitioner and when the petitioner asked him that no notice in relation to the said removal have been given to him till date, they only said that they will destruct the shop of petitioner without giving any notice anytime. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 have not given any notice to the petitioner till date and is trying to destruct the shop of petitioner illegally and arbitrary. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is an encroacher and he is not having any legal documents to show the ownership of his shop, as such, the respondent No. 4 & 5 have rightly destructed the said shop. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 & 5 submits that no document has been produced by the petitioner regarding ownership of his shop and without giving any notice to the petitioner, the shop was destructed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to make detailed representation before the concerned respondents i.e. 5 respondents No. 4 & 5 within a period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate his claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, the respondents No. 4 & 5 shall consider and decide the said representation preferably within the period of ‘45 days’ from the date of submission of the said representation. However, while deciding the representation, the respondents shall keep in mind that if any other place can be allotted to the petitioner for running his business, then the same may be considered sympathetically. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed off with aforesaid observations and directions. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha