1 / 4 2025:CGHC:43231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4607 of 2025 Smt. Ompati Choudhary W/o Late Devendra Singh Choudhary, Aged About 69 Years R/o House No. E-359, Sangwan Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar Road No. 2 Daldal Seoni, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administrative, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur) District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Zone Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Zone 9, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Narayan Dhimar S/o Puriram Dhimar, Aged About 70 Years R/o Shivaji Nagar, Daldal Shivni, Kushabau Thakre Ward No. 7, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA For Respondent No.2: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 26/08/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.28 18:12:45 +0530 2 / 4 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 08/03/2023 whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the construction from the Government land situated in Ward No.7, Shivaji Nagar, Gali No.2, Daldal Shivni. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed land is not a government land it is a self-acquired property of the Puriram Dhimar and as per the B1 kitbandi Khatona of the year 2019-2020 the name of the Puniram Dhimar in Khasra No. 688/1 admeasuring 0.0070 has been recorded in the revenue records. He would next contend that an agreement to sale has been executed on 19.03.2025 between the present petitioner and private respondent Narayan Dhimar, who is the legal heir of the puriram Dhimar and in the said agreement it is categorically mentioned that on 18.05.2011, the original owner i.e. Puriram Dhimar have executed an oral agreement to sale of Khasra No 688/1 area 368.11 square feet for the consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- out of which an amount of Rs 2,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner as token amount. He would next contend that since, the father of the private respondent i.e. Puriram Dhimar had died on 14.12.2013, therefore, the legal heirs of the Puriram will execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner once the name of the legal heirs recorded in the name of the legal heirs in the revenue records. He would next contend that 3 / 4 the petitioner is in possession of the said land since 18.05.2011 and despite that the respondent authority had issued impugned Notice Dated 08.03.2025 stating the petitioner has encroached upon the government land and the respondent authority had come with JCB to remove the encroachment of the petitioner in the month of march 2025 however the respondent authority was unable to dispossess the petitioner from the said land as the property is a private land not a government land. He would next contend that as per letter dated 17.03.2025 issued by the Zone Commissioner & Public information officer whereby it has been informed that the respondent authority does not have any documents which shows that the Khasra 688/1 is a government land further given the information that the respondent authority do not have any written complainant against the encroachment of the petitioner they are acting upon the oral complainant. He would lastly contend that respondent authorities are trying the disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner from a private land which is evident from the documents given the respondents under the RTI which also shows that the respondents do not have any documents which show that the said land is a government and even no demarcation have been done. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 4 / 4 6. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to file representation before the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such representation being filed, the said Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall decide the same within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the representation in accordance with law. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representation of the petitioner on its own merits. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu