1 2025:CGHC:31216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3467 of 2025 1 - Dipesh Kumar Nathwani S/o Mansukh Bhai Nathwani Aged About 50 Years R/o E.N.S.-699, Vaushali Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Durg Division, District - Durg (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. For Respondent-Corporation : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/07/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing Annexure P-1 dated 26.06.2025, whereby the Commissioner Nagar Nigam Bhilai passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and directed the SHO Vaishali Nagar Bhiali to provide police force for removal of construction made by the petitioner on 10.07.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.09 14:04:58 +0530 2 lawful owner of the subject lands situated at Khasra No. 8443 area 0.01 hectare /60.40 sq.m. and adjoining land Khasra No. 8197/1 area 299.2 sq.m., Village Kohka, which were gifted to him by his mother, Smt. Mangla Ben Nathwani, by way of a valid gift deed. The Petitioner has constructed on the said lands and had applied for regularization on 09.11.2022. The application for regularization was rejected by the authority on 26.09.2023, alleging unauthorized construction on land belonging to others and over a public passage. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the District Regularization Authority on 25.04.2024. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed a statutory second appeal against the said order before the State Govt. (Urban Development Department) Atal Nagar Naya Raipur on 20.12.2024. The state govt. without hearing the appeal, remanded the appeal to the (i) Commissioner Durg Division Durg and (ii) Commissioner Nagar Nigam Bhilai vide order dated 07.01.2025. Without deciding the appeal and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Commissioner has passed the order of eviction against the petitioner dated 26.06.2025, which is illegal, perverse and contrary to law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Commissioner Nagar Nigam Bhilai has rightly passed the order which warrants no interference. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Earlier this Court has passed the order vide WPC No. 704/2023 dated 22.01.2024 and the Court has observed in paragraphs 4 as 3 under:- Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective counsels, at this juncture, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within a period of three months from receipt of a copy of this order. The intervener would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Divisional Commissioner for his impleadment and the application shall be considered and decided on its own merits. 6. On the basis of the direction given by this Court in WPC No. 704/2023, the Divisional Commissioner has decided the pending appeal of the petitioner and rejected the same. 7. Against the rejection order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the State Government and the State Government without hearing the appeal without giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, remanded the appeal to the Commissioner Durg Division Durg and Commissioner Nagar Nigam Bhilai vide order dated 07.01.2025. 8. Section 10(2) of Chhattisgarh Anadhikrit Vikas ka Niyamitikaran 2002 provides that Government may modify or reverse the order of the Divisional Commissioner or authority under the Act as it may deem fit, no such order shall be passed by the Government unless the interested parties have been given an opportunity of being heard. 9. In the present case, it is crystal clear from the order Annexure P/4 that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and there is also no speaking order passed, therefore the impugned 4 orders dated 26.06.2025 and 07.01.2025 would not be sustainable and the same deserve to be and are accordingly set aside. 10. According, the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 is remitted back to the respondent No. 1Secretary/ Additional Secretary of the Urban Administration Department and the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner in an objective manner after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the concerned parties, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. Till the appeal of the petitioner is decided by the concerned authority, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti