1 2025:CGHC:37154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3982 of 2025 1 - Laxmichand Jain S/o Late Siremal Aged About 43 Years R/o Ramnagar Ward No.01, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg Division Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 7 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Annuram Sahu R/o Ramnagar, Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 30/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.31 11:12:27 +0530 2 relief:- “(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 1 which is arising out of order dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No. 2 in the interest of justice (ii) That any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice along with the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner in briefly is that the respondent authorities has issued advertisement for permanent lease allotment in respect of commercial land and the petitioner moreover, was applied for permanent lease of the commercial land for the purpose of commercial in the year 2008 and thereafter, the petitioner has permanent allotted the subject land for commercial purpose. Thereafter, the petitioner has constructed shop over the subject land and is running business of jeweler shop for survival and livelihood of his family members and also continuing paying tax to the respondent authority time to time and has peaceful in possession upon his respective shop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suddenly the respondent authorities have allotted the subject shop land survey no. 18 in favour of the private respondent no. 7 through registration dated 04.01.2022 against which the 3 petitioner was filed an application under section 51 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 before the learned Collector in which the learned Collector has passed the order dated 03.11.2022 with direction to file appeal before the appellate authorities. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Collector, the petitioner filed revision petition before the respondent no. 2 in which the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner vide its order dated 03.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner constituted revision petition before the respondent no. 1 against the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, wherein the respondent no. 1 vide its impugned order dated 03.04.2025 has rejected the revision representation without considering the material available on record and revenue record which is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that If the petitioner and his family members is removed from the said shop/land, the petitioner will face a severe consequence, it will be very difficult for petitioner and his family member to survival. The authority should first make provision with regard to the rehabilitation to the petitioner, and then only the order of removal of shop/land should have been passed. It 4 is not mentioned in the impugned order that under which section of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the order has been given to the petitioner. The impugned order is issued in grave violation of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959. 5. Learned State Counsel opposed the submission of the leaned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondent authorities has rightly passed the impugned order dated 03.04.2025. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for permanent lease in the year 2008, in compliance of which the Tehsildar Nazul Kawardha had prepared the details of Nazri Naksha in which the applied land is shown at a distance of 40 feet from Raipur Road and therefore he may be rehabilitate. However as per records it shows that Nazul Sheet number 18 plot number 23/1 is registered in the road area as per Kawardha Development Plan 2021. As such, the present writ petition being devoid of merits and deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti