1 2025:CGHC:37623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3950 of 2025 Ijrail Chauhan S/o Immamuddin Chauhan Aged About 57 Years R/o Kanhiya Puri Kasaridih Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The Municipal Corporation Durg Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Mayor-In Council Municipal Corporation Durg, Through Its President Municipal Corporation, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Pankaj Tripathi, PL. For Respondent-Corporation : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: 2 “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the notice dated 11/07/2025 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondent authorities settle the dispute between the petitioner and the Municipal corporation for the immediate effect because since 40 years back petitioner is in peaceful possession of shop no E-30. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to execute agreement between the petitioner and the corporation and also may kindly be direct to registered the said shop. 10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding her interest.” 2. Relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner is aggrieved against the illegal notice issued to the petitioner vide notice dated 11/07/2025 by respondent No.3 relating to Shop No.E-30 situated at Indira Market Durg, because of the reason that till date the respondents-authorities have not executed the agreement with the petitioner and under what authority and right Authority are demanding the amount of rent and premium when the petitioner has already deposited the premium amount. Shop in question was originally allotted to father of the petitioner namely Immamuddin Chauhan, who died in the year 2012 and it is settled position that after death of the father, petitioner has possessed over the shop and doing a small business for his livelihood. The petitioner has paid the premium amount on 26/02/1999 Rs.15000/-, on 01/07/2006 Rs.27500/-, on 16/07/1988 Rs.2500/- and Rs.45,000/-, he has also paid the other charges, copy of the premium are collectively 3 filed herewith as Anexure P/4, Colly. Father of the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent no.3 on 01/07/2006 for depositing the approval of map and depositing of premium amount in which it is mentioned that he has deposited the amount of premium of Rs. 27,500/- through bank, copy of letter is filed herewith as Annexure P/5. Father of the petitioner has also wrote a letter on 19/06/2006 for allotment of shop in question, copy of the letter is filed herewith as Annexure P/6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice Annexure P/1 is illegal and bad in law. The relevant documents relating to the shop in question are in the favour of the petitioner and since more than 40 years petitioner is in peaceful possession over the shop in question. After four decades, said notice is issued for depositing of premium amount as well as rent and also demanded supervision charge, whereas all the required demand has already been paid by father of petitioner during his life time, hence, on what basis huge amount is demanded. Till date, registration of the shop and agreement was not executed between the petitioner and respondent authority and thereby respondent authority is not complying the mandatory requirement, therefore, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submits that in the impugned notice, it is mentioned that if within ‘07 days’ total sum of Rs.14,52,672/- will not paid then the shop in question will be sealed, the process of eviction is carried out without any substance because of the reason that before this notice no any notice is given to the petitioner and opportunity of hearing is also not provided to the petitioner. All of sudden, such type of notice is illegal, unwarranted and unconstitutional. If the eviction 4 process and sealing of shop will be carried out certainly it would be violation of principal of natural justice. Hence, it is prayed that impugned notice Annexure P-1 be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Municipal Corporation placed some documents before this Court and contended that on the basis of the notifications dated 30th January 2017 & 25th November 2019, office of the Municipal Corporation, Durg has passed the resolution with regard to the increment of the premium. In the year 2018, notice has already been issued to the petitioner. Learned Counsel further contended that if the petitioner will pay the requisite amount to the Municipal Corporation, the Authority concerned is ready to execute the agreement with the petitioner for further period as per relevant rules/regulation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of dispute, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that the Authority concerned is still ready to execute the agreement with the petitioner on depositing of the requisite amount, without commenting anything on merits of the case, writ petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction that on depositing/payment of requisite amount by the petitioner, respondent/Municipal Corporation shall execute the agreement with the petitioner regarding shop in question as per relevant rules/law/regulation. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-