1 2025:CGHC:39922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4237 of 2025 Manoj Kashyap S/o Rajaram Kashyap, Aged About 56 Years R/o N.H. 56, Shanti Para, Chatauna, Mungeli, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Naib Tehsildar Jarhagaon, Tehsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Rajendra Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Amarnath Jaiswal, Aged About 55 Years Jarhagaon, Tehsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner-in-person : Mr. Manoj Kashyap For Respondent-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 08.08.2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.08.08 17:58:44 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, petitioner is seeking following relief(s): “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the Respondents to adequate compensation to the Petitioner for the illegal demolition of his hotel and shops in violation of the status quo order; iii. That, Court Direct an the Hon'ble enquiry/investigation by a senior officer or judicial authority into the circumstances under which the demolition was carried out despite court orders; iv. Award costs and damages for the malicious, high- handed and illegal action of the respondent authorities; v. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioner submits that the present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner, Manoj Kashyap, seeking compensation for the illegal demolition of his hotel and shops by the respondent authorities in blatant violation of the interim status quo order dated 28.06.2024 passed by this Court in WPC No. 1301/2024.The petitioner was running his lawful business on land near Khasra No. 3 246/1 and 246/2, which became subject to dispute due to manipulated demarcation and collusion between private individuals and government officials. Despite several legal proceedings and protective orders, including interim relief granted in earlier writ petitions, the respondent authorities, acting in connivance with private respondent No. 5, demolished the petitioner's establishments without any notice or legal authority. The petitioner had previously filed a writ seeking compensation (WPC No. 4819/2024), which withdrawn with liberty. The present petition seeks enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, and compensation under public law remedy for the high- handed and arbitrary actions of the State and its functionaries. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the State has contended that if the petitioner file a fresh representation for compensation, the concerned authorities shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by the parties, at this stage, the instant petition is disposed of by permitting to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.3 – Sub Divisional Officer (R), Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for grant of compensation and in-turn respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same expeditiously as early as possible in accordance with rules, 4 regulations and law. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant