1 2025:CGHC:44943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4690 of 2025 1 - Mohammad Gani Biba S/o Late Rafique Bhai, Aged About 55 Years R/o Old Ganj Chowk, Ward No. 29, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 4 and 5 : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.08 16:24:24 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition being aggrieved by the impugned actions of respondent authorities who are bent to evict the petitioner and his family from the occupied land and demolish the structure raised by him without following the order passed by this Court. The petitioner’s father being a landless person applied for allotment of land before the authorised officer. The petitioner’s father was found to be eligible and thereafter under Rajiv Gandhi, Ashray Yojna, he was allotted Plot No.61A/43/1 at Dabripara, measuring 684 Square Feet, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Thereafter, on 19/02/2021, a notice was issued for eviction and on 17/06/2021 the occupied structure was demolished thereafter the father of the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WPC No.2518/2021 which was decided on 24/02/2022 and it was directed by this Court to not to take coercive steps against the petitioner’s father and his family before providing alternative land in the nearby area after giving an offer. 2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records pertaining to the case of the petitioner, in 3 the interest of justice. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to pay the yearly rent for rehabilitation and grant of lease for alternative land to petitioner, situated at Dabri Para, Mohalla Ganj Line, sheet no. 61 A, plot no. 40 area 684 square feet, Rajnandgaon, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not evict the petitioner from the occupied land till the alternative land is not provided in lease as per order passed by the Hon'ble Court on 24/02/2022, in the interest of justice. 10.4. That, the Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased enough to direct the respondent authorities to grant lease to the petitioner in lieu of his occupied land for any undisputed land in nearby area of municipal corporation Rajnandgaon, in the interest of justice. 10.5. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been offered an alternative land of same size in same locality, i.e., Plot No.61A/40 at Dabripara measuring area 684 Square Feet and the petitioner seeks some time to pay annual rent of the alternative land and seeks its 4 possession. 4. Learned counsel for the Corporation/respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that since the petitioner has been offered an alternative land, he may be directed to pay annual rent of the said alternative land and take its possession and vacate the present occupied premises/land in question. 5. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1, 4 and 5 supported the contention of learned counsel for the Corporation. 6. In WPC No.2518 of 2021, this Court has passed the following orders on 24.2.2022: “10. True it is that the petitioner has been earning his livelihood from the said place. If the petitioner is evicted from the said place, he would be losing his source of livelihood and It would not be in the larger interest of the petitioner as also the dependents upon the petitioner. If at all if the Municipal Corporation requires that land for beautification of that area and also for providing better amenities to the residents of the said area, the duty is also equally casted upon the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the people who get dispossessed in the course of eviction proceeding are suitably accommodated somewhere so that they can from the said relocated place can continue their business and earn their livelihood for their survival and also the dependents on them. The 5 petitioner may have a plot elsewhere which he must have purchased from the earning from the shop that is being run from the present place. Now if the petitioner stands evicted outrightly without being provided any other place to operate his business, that could have a far reaching effect so far as the survival of the petitioner is concerned. If the Municipal Corporation could provide alternative suitable land to 9 out of 10 persons residing in the said vicinity where the petitioner's property situates, the respondent Corporation should have in all fairness considered granting of an alternative land to the extent of the land which the petitioner possesses at the present place i.e. 684 square feet anywhere within the Municipal Corporation limits. 11. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case also the writ petition as of now can be disposed of directing the respondent no.3, with due permission and sanction from the State Govt. if required, offer the petitioner an alternative land to the extent of equivalent size for which he has a temporary lease which in the instant case is 684 square feet anywhere within the Municipal Corporation limits or in the alternative a house similar to the 9 persons who were residing in the adjoining land where the petitioner's property situates and who have also been accommodated. The respondent no.3, after making such offer, shall provide the petitioner a reasonable time for removing the property belonging to him from the said 6 place and then proceed further with the beautification and widening of road and which should necessarily be completed at the earliest. 12. The wit petition with the aforesaid observation/direction stands disposed of. 13. It is made clear that till the respondents do not make such offer to the petitioner, they would not take any coercive step in dispossessing the petitioner from the said property.” 7. Thereafter, in WPC No.5430 of 2022, this Court passed the following orders on 3.1.2023: “5. State counsel on the other hand opposes the petition and submits that considering the category to which petitioner belongs and the scheme under which petitioner was allotted the land earlier, he therefore cannot now be choosy of the plot which has been offered to him. This Court in the earlier round of litigation had specifically directed the respondent Authorities to offer the petitioner an alternative land to the extent of size of which he already had a temporary lease earlier. This direction of Court was duly considered and he has been offered a plot of the same size in the same locality. Therefore he cannot have a grievance now, nor can he be choosy for seeking a land of his choice. Thus, prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 7 6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, taking into consideration the specific observations that this Court had made in the earlier round of litigation, this Court is of the opinion that all that the petitioner was entitled for was an alternative suitable location and which respondents have offered the petitioner. Further that the land offered is also at the same location from where he was earlier operating his business i.e. Dabripara itself except for the shifting of the Plot No. The Writ Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 cannot venture into an arena which the petitioner seeks for an allotment of land convenient to the petitioner for operation of his business. The right of petitioner was only to the extent of having an alternative land against temporary lease that he had earlier and which respondents have accepted and have offered the petitioner now vide Plot No.61A/40 at Dabripara itself. 7. Another fact which needs to be considered is that before the allotment offer was made to the petitioner, objections were called from the local residents of the nearby vicinity. There was no objection as such received which also gives an indication that neighborhood where petitioner has been offered the land also does not have any objection, if he shifts and operates his business on the same offered land. However, in case, if petitioner is not satisfied with the land offered, the only option available to the petitioner is to approach the respondent Authorities itself on the administrative side convincing 8 them for any other suitable land, if available with the respondents. 8. Reserving the right of the petitioner to approach respondent no.2 & 3 in this regard, the writ petition stands rejected.” 8. Now, Annexure P8 (at pages 37 and 38) states that the petitioner prays for some time to pay the annual rent of Rs.36,156 for the alternative land offered to him on temporary lease in the same locality and of the same size, i.e., Plot No.61A/40 at Dabripara measuring area 684 Square Feet. Vide Annexure P8, the petitioner also prays for marking of the land offered to him and handing over of possession of the land to him after receipt of the annual rent from him for the said land. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, 30 days’ time from today is granted to the petitioner to pay the due annual rent through challan for the alternative land offered to him on temporary lease, i.e., Plot No.61A/40 at Dabripara measuring area 684 Square Feet On receipt of the annual rent, the concerned authority shall mark the said alternative land and the petitioner shall be handed over vacant possession of the said land within 30 days from receipt of the annual rent. On receipt of possession of the said alternative land, the petitioner shall vacate the present occupied premises/land in question within 15 days from the date of receipt of possession 9 of the aforesaid alternative land. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal