1 2025:CGHC:9113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1029 of 2025 1 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Its Dy. General Manager - Raipur Retail Pandri District Raipur (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District Durg (C.G) 3 - Superintendent of Police District Durg (C.G) 4 - Jitendra Agrawal S/o Late Madan Lal Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Charoda Bus Stand Charoda, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G) 5 - Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Madan Lal Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Charoda Bhilai Charoda, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel lawyer. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.25 18:12:51 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for taking appropriate steps enabling the petitioner to retrieve their assets/products in the presence of Police protection and in presence of State authorities. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the land bearing Khasra Nos.437/15, 437/16, 437/17 & 437/18, P.H. No.2, admeasuring 16200 Sq.Ft situated at Charoda on NH-6 Tehsil Patan, allotted to the petitioner on lease by respondent Nos.4 & 5 and presently the lease has been cancelled, however, the assets of HPCL are still lying in the land in question. The petitioner requested the authorities i.e. administration and police vide Annexure P-4 and P-5 to provide security to the petitioner so that the assets can be removed from the sites at the earliest. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police and the Collector and they shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and necessary steps will be taken in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 representation submitted by the petitioner. 5. As earlier the HPCL has allotted the retail outlet on the land in question which was owned by the respondent No.4 and thereafter, the lease has been cancelled due to some personal dispute of respondent Nos.4 & 5, who are the siblings and hence, the HPCL wish to remove its property, which are still lying in the land in question. 6. In view of the above, the Collector and the Superintendent of Police/respondents are directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and provide necessary security to the present petitoner-HPCL, so that the assets which are lying in the land in question can be removed by them. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep