1 2025:CGHC:30897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 824 of 2023 Amar Sukhwani S/o Late Manohar Lal Sukhwani, Aged About 43 Years R/o Vivekanand Colony, Gali No. 03, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4 - Mayor, Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 5 - Building Officer, Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For the Municipal Corporation For the State : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 2 (Annexure P/1) and Panchnama dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P/2), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Relevant facts of this case are that the Anjuman Islamia Committee is a registered Committee under the Waqf Board Act, 1995. The Committee is owner of Khasra No.209, area 2.60 acre, situated at Risai Para, near Ratnabandha Chowk, which contains Plot No. 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 6/5, 6/6, 6/7 & 6/8. The Committee has executed a rent agreement in favour of petitioner in respect of a shop admeasuring 247 sq. ft, which was later on renewed. As condition of the petitioner’s shop became shabby, he approached the Committee and, thereafter, the Committee preferred an application before respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation for grant of permission for repairing of the shop, which was allowed and, thereafter, petitioner started the repairing/construction work in said shop. Suddenly, without providing proper opportunity of hearing and without conducting preliminary enquiry, respondent No.2 has issued impugned order for sealing of the said shop. Hence, this petition. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that one Chunnilal Keshwani had challenged the ownership of the Committee with respect to Plot No. 6/1, area about 11000sq.ft. out of Khasra No. 209, area 2.60 acre before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, which was allowed on 24.04.2012. Against which, the Committee has preferred the writ petition (WPC No.1366/2012), which is still pending for 3 consideration before this Court, in which, interim order was passed on 27.07.2012, operative part is as follows "Considering the facts situation of the case, it is directed that the parties shall maintain status quo as obtaining today with regard to possession till the next date of hearing. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not raise any construction over the land in question till the next date of hearing" . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is dispute between the Committee and Chunnilal Keshwani, who is respondent No.6 in WPC No.1366/2012. A complaint made by Chunnilal Keshwani before respondent No.2 and, thereafter, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order for sealing of the shop of the petitioner, however, this Court vide order dated 23.02.2023 has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order with following direction “The respondent authorities are also directed to ensure that the lock and seals that has been put on the shop should be removed forthwith, however, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding that are otherwise permissible under the law.” Learned Counsel further contended that repairing of the shop has been completed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Municipal Corporation submits that there is dispute between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation. Based on complainant made by one Chunnilal Keshwani, respondent No.2 has proceed against the petitioner as per rules/law. The relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition has already been given to him as the repairing of the shop has already been completed, hence, this writ petition has become infructuous. 4 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that State is a formal party in this case. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Considering the above facts and submissions of counsel for the parties, writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to revive the same if any cause of action arises in future. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-