1 2025:CGHC:15477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1683 of 2025 1 - Suresh Tiwari @ Mannu Lal S/o Lt. Shri Nageshwar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 61 Years Permanent Address - Hanuman Mandir Gol Bazar, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Presently Residing At Mahamaya Park, Ward No. 14, Mangla, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nazul Officer Collectorate Office, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Collector Office Of Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Building Officer Municipal Corporation Bilaspur (C.G.). 5 - Zone Commissioner Zone No. 5, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur (C.G.). 6 - Vikas Tekchandani S/o Shri Arjun Das Tekchandani R/o Sindhi Colony, Masanganj, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate. For Respondents No. 3 & 5: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/04/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a) to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Respondent no.1, and/or b) Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed against the memo dated 12.03.2025 whereby he has been directed to remove the illegal encroachment made by him. He further submits that before passing such memo no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner as such he has filed this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that this petition is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 5 submits that in case the petitioner is relying upon the will he has to file appropriate civil suit before the concerned Court. 5. Be that as it may, since the petitioner was not heard before 3 passing such a memo, respondents No. 3 and 5 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner files an appropriate application/ objection within a period of 2 days from the receipt of copy of this order and till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not opined anything on merits and respondents No. 3 and 5 and the State are free to decide the matter in accordance with law. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat