Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52587 (CHH)

VIJAY KUMAR SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/5187/2025 · 2025-10-05

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:49545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5187 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Lekhram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Ekta Colony, Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - The Collector, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey along with Ms. Jyoti Chandravanshi, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent no. 3 : : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order protecting the 2 interest of the petitioner and stay the effect and operation of permission order dated 08.09.2025 (annexure P/1) and direct the Respondent no. 3 to not take any coercive steps against the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or direction and direct the Respondent no. 3 to file an affidavit stating that the land bearing Khasra No. 559/2/Fk/1 is recorded as grassland in the revenue records, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 559/2/Fk/1 admeasuring area 324.58 sq. meters from Smt. Rajkumari Yadav through registered sale deed dated 10.05.2012. The subject land was recorded in the revenue records as Bhumiswami land and on the basis of which, the petitioner purchased the land and completed its mutation proceedings and mutated the said land on his name and possession. Subsequent to the purchase of the subject land by the petitioner, the land was also recorded in the name of the petitioner in the Rin Pustika. Further, at present also, the name of the petitioner is entered into the Khasra Panchshala as Bhumiswami land. 3 3. This Court asked a specific question to the counsel for respondent no. 3 that whether respondent no. 3 has issued any show cause notice or has provided the petitioner with any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P/1)? In this regard, the counsel for respondent no. 3 contended that respondent no. 3 has issued a show cause to Mr. Narendra Kurrey, Architect who is an empanelled Engineer of the respondent no. 3. He place the document,i.e. notice dated 08.09.2025 which is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that order has already been passed against the petitioner on 08.09.2025 and respondent no. 3 has also issued notice to the Engineer on the same date, i.e. on 08.09.2025 and 3 days time was given by the respondent no. 3 to Mr. Narendra Kurre for reply of the notice. Also, respondent no. 3 has cancelled the building permission granted earlier on 20.06.2025. Therefore, records reveals that without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no. 3 has cancelled the building permission which was earlier granted on 20.06.2025. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, it is hereby quashed. However, matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 3 and it is directed that after giving 4 sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no. 3 shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, rules and regulations. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima