1 2025:CGHC:13846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4333 of 2024 1 - Manmohan Yadav S/o Gandhilas Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o 240, Ward No. 1, Block No. 7, Junwani Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Aman Kureshi S/o Abith Kureshi Aged About 27 Years R/o 292, Gandhi Nagar, Ward No. 39 Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Mohammad Mohsim S/o Mohammad Nisar Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 130/k, Ward No.6, Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Tehsildar, Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Bhilai Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner, Having Its Officer At Supela, Bhilai District -Durg (C.G.) 5 - Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 1 Bhilai Municipal Corporation Having Its Office At Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Intervenor : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.24 17:15:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 22.03.2025 1 Heard Mr. Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Upasana Mehta, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 as well as Mr. Ritesh Giri, learned counsel for the intervenor. 2 The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction of Mandamus quashing the impugned notice dated 21.08.2024 [Annexure P-1] issued to the petitioners respectively in the light of facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ order or direction of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to initiating rehabilitation proceedings and/or land acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law and to allot alternative land to the petitioners within such time frame as the Hon'ble may deems fit in the light of fact and circumstances of the case till then the 3 petitioners shop shall not be demolished and/or the Bhilai Municipal Corporation may kindly be restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioners. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which it may deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 10.5 To award full cost of the present petition against the respondent authorities.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are shop owners running small businesses like Kirana and Pan Shops, etc. situated at Junwani, Bhilai and are in possession of the said land for past more than two decades. He further submits that the respondent authorities in a very illegal and arbitrary manner adopted the “Pick and Choose” method and are issuing notice of demolition against the present petitioners, by which they are being deprived of the property on a complaint made by third person because her land falls behind the shop of the petitioners. It has been further contended that the respondent authorities in an arbitrary manner declared the land in possession of petitioners as encroachment and sending notice to remove encroachment or else they will demolish the same. 4 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a limited prayer that respondent authorities be directed to initiate rehabilitation proceedings and/or land acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law as also to allot alternative land to the 4 petitioners within such time frame as may be deemed fit in the light of fact and circumstances of the case and till then, the shops of the petitioners shall not be demolished. 5 Considering the limited prayer raised by the petitioners particularly, relief clause No.10.3, without commenting anything into the merits of the case, the respondent authorities, i.e. respondent No.4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners by initiating rehabilitation proceedings and/or land acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law as also to allot alternative land to the petitioners considering the facts and circumstances of the their respective cases as they are running the small shops and till then, the shops of the petitioners shall not be demolished. 6 With the aforementioned observation/direction, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh