1 2025:CGHC:20166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 851 of 2020 • Goverdhan Yadav S/o Shri Jhadu Ram Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Line Para, Post Office Nagri, Tehsil Nagri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector , Dhamtari, Rudri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2. Nagar Panchayat Nagri, Through Chief Municipality Officer, Office Of Nagar Panchayat, Nagri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i To kindly quash the impugned orders/letters annexed as ANNEXURE P/1, being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the settled proposition of law. 10.ii To kindly allow the petitioner to carry on his business on the already possessed land by him, duly alloted by respondent no.2 itself. 10.iii To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 2. Mr. Ayush Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner runs a betel shop at Bajrang Chowk, Nagri for the last 30 years. He would further submit that the petitioner was regularly paying property tax and electricity bills. He would also submit that the possession of the subject property was given to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 – Nagar Panchayat Nagri. He would contend that a notice was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner on 25.02.2020, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove his possession. Mr. Ayush Verma would also contend that the petitioner has sufficient documents to establish that the subject property was allotted to him by the competent authority. He would argue that the petitioner is paying taxes to respondent No. 2 without any default. He would also argue that without holding any enquiry and without affording the opportunity of hearing, the notice dated 25.02.2020 has been issued against the petitioner. He would pray to quash that notice. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Animesh Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner has encroached over government land, therefore, a notice was issued by respondent No. 2 on 25.02.2020 to the petitioner to remove illegal possession. They would contend that the petitioner failed to submit relevant documents to establish his right over the subject property. It is also contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. Perusal of the documents annexed along with this petition would show that the petitioner was making payment of taxes to respondent No.2 without any default. It also appears that the petitioner is running a betel shop, which is the only source of livelihood for the petitioner and his family. The permission was granted to construct the shop to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 vide work order dated 21.08.2019. 6. Admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the issuance of notice dated 25.02.2020, therefore, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a suitable representation along with relevant documents before respondent No. 2 within a period of 30 days and in turn, respondent No. 2 is directed to decide it in an objective manner strictly in accordance with the law affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a further period of 60 days and for a period of 90 days, the interim order granted on 05.03.2020 shall remain in force. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti