1 2025:CGHC:20105-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 278 of 2025 Chhotelal S/o Manglu Mahilange Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Mother Teresa Ward, Majhwapara, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Vikas Bhawan, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Add. A.G. and Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.05.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.03 12:34:45 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 / State and Ms. A. Sandhya Rao on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respective respondent. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2089 of 2019 (Chhotelal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that there was averment that road of Majhwapara from point of Santu Kabadi to house of Gourelal Sagar is recorded in the revenue record as 25 feet to 32 feet, however some person have encroach the road, due to aforesaid encroachment, only 8 feet of road has been remain available for public. The writ petitioner as well as other residents of vicinity made several representation before the respondent authority, demarcation was carried out on 25.04.2015 and found large scale of encroachment on the road. It was case of writ petitioner in the writ petition that earlier petition WPC No. 2212/2016 filed by the writ petitioner was disposed of on 31.08.2016 directing the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the writ petitioner and decide the same at the earlier within one month. It is further observed in the order that if representation is decided in favour of 3 the writ petitioner, the construction of the road would be carried out without any delay preferable within period of three months. It was further case of the writ petitioner that despite of the clear direction the respondents have not decided the representation, the writ petitioner file contempt petition bearing Contempt Case No. 93/2017 which has been disposed of on 15.02.2017, wherein counsel for the respondent No. 2 stated on instruction that "the representation preferred by the writ petitioner shall be decided within four weeks". It was case of the writ petitioner that despite of the direction the respondent No. 2 has not taken any positive action to decide the representation filed by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner submitted reminder on dated 30.04.2019 but no response was received. In writ petition, respondent No. 2 filed reply wherein the respondent No. 2 admitted that there was some encroachment but due to Lockdown imposed by the District Collector no substantial action has been taken. It is respectfully submission that till filing the petition bearing WPC No. 2289/2020, the grievance of the writ petitioner was still alive. On 11.03.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner, hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, therefore, liable to be set-aside. The learned Single Judge not considered the fact that, the Contempt Petition No. 93/2017 has 4 been disposed of on undertaking given by the Municipal Corporation, the undertaking given by the Municipal Corporation has not been acted upon which arise new cause of action, therefore, writ petition was maintainable. Further, the learned Single Judge has also not considered that, the second writ petition is maintainable to enforce the earlier order / undertaking given in the earlier writ petition and the respondent No. 2 filed reply in the instant petition wherein it was found that there was encroachment in the subject road. The writ petition was filed in the year 2020, after lapse of four years petition cannot rejected on the ground of the maintainability. The learned trial Court has not considered the fact that, the issue involved in the petition was serious in nature, the allegation in the petition in respect of the illegal encroachment on the public road, due to encroachment the resident of locality are facing great difficulty. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 5 Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPC No. 2089 of 2019 vide order dated 11.03.2025, holding that from perusal of the documents, it appears that on account of non-compliance with the order passed by this Court, the writ petitioner filed a contempt petition (CONT/93/2017), wherein the respondent No.2/ Municipal Corporation gave an undertaking to redress the grievance of the writ petitioner. However, no action was taken. Consequently, the present writ petitions have been filed. Learned Single Judge lastly concluded that the fact that to get benefit of limitation, the writ petition is not maintainable, as in the earlier round of litigation, a direction was issued to the concerned authorities to decide the representation of the writ petitioner, but when the authorities failed to comply with the order passed by this Court in WPC No.2212 of 2016, the writ petitioner filed a contempt petition (CONT/93/2017), which was disposed of on an undertaking given by the Municipal Corporation. However, as the grievance of the writ petitioner remained unaddressed, the writ petition in question was filed seeking relief similar as sought in an earlier writ petition (WPC/2212/2016). 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are 6 noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under the law. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet