1 / 3 2025:CGHC:34434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3790 of 2025 Suryakant Dewangan S/o Shri Neelkanth Dewangan, Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Nagar Panchayat, Kunra (Kunwargarh), Tahsil - Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil - Dharsiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Kunra (Kunwargarh), Tahsil - Dharsiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent authorities whereby the respondent authorities have identified and finalized the land right in front of the petitioner’s ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.07.22 11:22:21 +0530 2 / 3 agricultural land for construction of Anganbadi building. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the registered owner of landlocked property bearing Khasra No.273/4, area 0.040 hectares situated in Ward No.13, Nagar Panchayat Kunra, District Raipur and the respondents have identified and finalized a portion of government land in front of petitioner’s landlocked property for the construction of Anganbadi building whereby the easementary right of way and drainage system for his agricultural land has been affected. He would next contend that the petitioner on 07/07/2025 raised a written objection before the Respondent No.4 for redressal of his grievance and thereafter the respondent authorities vandalized the petitioner’s boundary wall on 09/07/2025 without any prior notice or any opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that Respondent No.4 shall decide the representation of the petitioner dated 07/07/2025 (Annexure P/2) within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the 3 / 3 merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representation of the petitioner on its own merits. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu