1 / 3 2025:CGHC:8553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 983 of 2025 1 - Dev Narayan Sahu S/o Late Shri Rai Singh Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No.08, Near Gayatri Mandir, Nagar Panchayat Utai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Cum District Magistrate Durg District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Tehsildar Tehsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Utai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) 2 / 3 For Petitioner : Mr. Mahanish Kumar Dote, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the second notice dated 05/02/2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.6/ Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Utai, Tahsil and District, Durg by which the CMO has directed the petitioner to remove his business related articles kept in the Government land within a period of three days. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner by filing a representation dated 06/02/2025 (Annexure P/2) before the Collector, Durg submitted that the petitioner as well as his family members are using the said government land by keeping their business related articles and they are earning their livlihood from the said business and for which necessary action be taken in accordance with law, hence the issuance of said notice dated 05/02/2024 for removal of encroachment is illegal and contrary. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the notice issued by the CMO. He further submits that from perusal of the said notice, it is clear that earlier, notice for removal of encroachment was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner failed to reply to the same, hence issuance of the impugned notice (Annexure P/1) for removal of encroachment is just and proper. 3 / 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as well as the impugned notice dated 05/02/2025. 5. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner is having illegal possession over the Government land and using the same by keeping his business related articles for which the concerned CMO has issued a notice to the petitioner to remove the illegal encroachment but till date, the petitioner has not replied to the said notice. 6. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the said removal notice issued by the CMO within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of submitting such reply to the notice by the petitioner, the respondent No.6/ CMO shall take a decision within a further period of five days from the date of submission of such reply by the petitioner. Till the said period of 15 days, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar