1 2025:CGHC:12654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1438 of 2025 1 - Smt. Datal Bi D/o Yusuf Ali Aged About 50 Years R/o 1841, Govind Nagar, In Front Of Irani Imam Dera, Rajatalab, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Administration Department, Urban Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Commissioner, Its Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Zone Commissioner Zone No. 3, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 2 to 4 Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to issued a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notices dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Respondent no. 4. Alternatively That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the Respondents to draw proceedings under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 before demolishing the shop of the petitioner. 2) Any alternative same size shop for the livelihood of the petitioner has to be allotted by the respondent authorities. 3) Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem 3 and proper in present circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the impugned notices issued in the name of the tenant of the petitioner dated 11.03.2025, issued by the respondent No. 4, whereby Zone Commissioner, Zone 3, Municipal Corporation, Raipur have been directed to remove the shop considering it as an encroacher on the Government land. The petitioner rented the shop to Shri Sharukh and Shri Shekh Gaus which were running the shop since 2011 and the petitioner regularly deposited the property tax of the said property, all of sudden the respondent authority issued an impugned notice saying that the shop are encroached upon the land and which is required by the Municipal Corporation Raipur. Without giving sufficient time of hearing the tenant of the petitioner is forced to vacant the shop within 3 days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is in possession of the land for about last 11 years and according to him he is in possession of his own land. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Raipur submits that illegal construction is being raised in a government land and they are not removing the possession of the petitioner but they are only demolishing the super structure constructed upon the government land in an 4 illegal manner without approval and sanction of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 5. Considering the dispute, the petitioner is directed to submit the entire documents in respect of his claim before the Municipal Corporation, Raipur and, in turn, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur is also directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law with a reasoned and speaking order. 6. Till then, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur is directed not to demolish the super structure raised by the petitioner, however, it is made clear that this Court has not made any opinion in respect of merits of the case and the respondents are at liberty to act in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat