1 2025:CGHC:6247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2647 of 2024 1 - Suresh Chand Vishwas S/o Shri P.K. Vishwas Aged About 60 Years R/o Imlipara Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sakib Ahmed, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent Corporation : Shri A.S. Kacchhawaha, Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.05 15:54:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent corporation to provide alternative space to the petitioner, as the garage of the petitioner’s father has been demolished without providing any opportunity of hearing and without allotting any alternative space/shop to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted a temporary lease by the respondent municipal corporation in the year 1984 by allotting the land in question, wherein initially the petitioner’s father and subsequently the petitioner has started a motor garage workshop in the name of Vinesh Automobiles and after the allotment of the said land on lease, the petitioner was paying property tax. The petitioner was making payment of property tax till date of demolition of the said property. 3. On 15.05.2024, the corporation without providing any opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice demolished the garage of the petitioner without making any payment of compensation and without providing any alternative shop to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the demolition of the garage/shop without rehabilitating the petitioner is absolutely illegal and arbitrary, hence, the respondent deserves a 3 direction to provide alternative shop in place of the demolished property which was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1984. 4. Learned counsel for the corporation would submit that the shop in question has been demolished, because the petitioner and his father has encroached upon the shop in question without any valid permission from the Corporation. Learned counsel for the corporation would further submit that this is not a case, where only the petitioner shop has been demolished, there are large number of encroachment which were demolished in the year 2024. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and document placed by the petitioner. 6. It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner was operating a garage/shop allotted to him in the year 1984 temporararily by the corporation and they were earning the livelihood from the said garage/shop, however the same has been demolished without rehabilitating the petitioner and without allotting any alternate shop or land to the petitioner to operate said garage which has been demolished by the corporation. It appears from the contention of the respondent counsel that after the demolition of the petitioner’s garage no rehabilitation plan or scheme has been framed by the corporation to rehabilitate the petitioner who was operating there shop/garage in question. Because of the demolition, the petitioner has lost his livelihood. Therefore, looking to the said fact, that the petitioner was having a lease deed on the date of demolition which has been alleged to have been issued by Corporation in the year 1984, it is directed that the corporation shall consider the case of 4 the petitioner and pass necessary order for rehabilitation of the petitioner by allotting the shop in nearby area after verifying the earlier lease deed which was executed by the corporation with the petitioner within a period of 60 days. 7. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib