1 2025:CGHC:47742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4973 of 2025 1 - Smt. Krishna Tiwari W/o Shri Sanat Tiwari Aged About 55 Years R/o Arvind Nagar, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Gupta, GA For Respondents 2 & 4 : Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Advocate SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.22 11:18:38 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/09/2025 The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the legality of the final notice/order darted 12.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4-Municipal Corporation whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit registration fee of Rs. 5,000/- and obtain allotment letter and shift from Basod Mohalla Indira Vihar Gate to Imlibhatha Awas by removing her existing house within 7 days, failing which the corporation threatened to remove the same. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and her husband were granted patta under the Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Kshetroon ke Bhumihin Vyakti (Pattadhari Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 in respect of Abadi land bearing Khasra No. 239/1measuring 700 sq. ft. at Arvind Nagar Ward, Sarkanda, Bilaspur. A residential house was constructed thereon from the family’s life savings and the petitioner has been residing therein for decades. It is contended that the petitioner has no violated any condition of the patta and the same has never been cancelled by the competent authority. Without cancelling the subsisting patta, the Municipal Corporation issued the impugned notice, which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14,21 and 300 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the proceedings regarding cancellation of the patta are pending before the competent authority, but 3 date no cancellation order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner continues to be a lawful pattadhar of the subject land. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 4 submits that the land is required for public purpose and therefore the petitioner has been directed to shift to an alternative site. However, he fairly concedes that the patta issued in favor of the petitioner has not yet been cancelled. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the patta issued under the Act of 1984 in favor of the petitioner and her husband is still valid and has not been cancelled by the competent authority. Unless and until the patta is cancelled in accordance with law the rights flowing therefrom cannot be taken away. Therefore,the issuance of the impugned notice dated 12.09.2025 by the Municipal Corporation without first cancelling the patta, is wholly arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. 6. Accordingly, the impugned notice/order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. Needless to say that the authority concerned shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The petition is thus allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge