1 2026:CGHC:8848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 728 of 2026 1 - Sohan Lal Deshmukh S/o Roshan Lal Deshmukh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sukhdev Yadav S/o Bisauha Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3 - CEO Zilla Panchayat Durg District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Sarpanch Anjora (Kha) District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Secretary Anjora (Kha) Tehsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Sharda Gore W/o Lekhram Gore Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 7 - Sikandar Dewangan S/o Shiv Kumar Dewangan Aged About 45 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 8 - Vikash Sahu S/o Lekhram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 9 - Anil Rai S/o Ambika Rai Aged About 35 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 10 - Shyamu Sahu S/o Dauvaram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 11 - Toman Sahu S/o Late Pitamber Sahu Aged About 50 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 12 - Dhaneshwar Sahu S/o Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 13 - Dhaleshwar Sahu S/o Pooran Lal Sahu Aged About 40 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 14 - Rajkumar Deshmukh S/o Dakwar Deshmukh Aged About 37 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 15 - Revtiraman S/o Late Govind Yadav Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 16 - Manju Vaishnav D/o Late Dhruv Vaishnav Aged About 42 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 17 - Kishan Deshmukh S/o Late Chetram Deshmukh Aged About 54 Years Village Anjora (Kha) Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioners : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate. &For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 19/02/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to comply the enquiry report dated 16.10.2024 and take action against the respondent no. 4 and 5 and also for allocation of shops as soon as possible through fair and legal way. 3 10.3 Any other relief or relief (s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Gram Panchayat Anjora ([k) constructed 12 shops for the residents of Anjora, but the same has been allotted by respondents No. 4 & 5 without complying with the provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity, ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’). He further submits that respondents No. 4 & 5, who are Sarpanch & Secretary of village Anjora ([k), respectively, have allotted those shops to their own family members / well wishers. He further submits that on being complaint made the petitioners and other villagers of village Anjora, an enquiry was got conducted by respondent No. 3 – Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Durg and enquiry report (Annexure P-3) has also been submitted by the team of Enquiry Officers, who have also reported that in the allotment of aforesaid shops, provisions contained in ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’ has not been complied with, despite that no action has been taken by respondents No. 2 & 3 / Competent Authorities against respondents No. 4 & 5, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at this stage this petition may be disposed of directing respondents No. 2 & 3 to take appropriate steps in Enquiry Report (Annexure P-3) dated 16.10.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2 has no objection to allow the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 5. If a local body constructed shops over the government land, then it ought to have complied with the provisions contained in ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’ and rules made thereunder and other relevant rules also. If the authorities of Gram Panchayat allots shops without following the due procedure prescribed in the Adhiniyam, 1993 and the rules made thereunder and, that too, allots shops to the persons of their own choice, then it cannot be appreciated. In instant case, as per Enquiry Report (Annexure P-3), while allotting shops, respondents No. 4 & 5 have not complied with the provisions contained in ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’, therefore, respondent No. 2 & 3 / competent authority ought to have taken appropriate steps under the law, which has not been taken by them. Therefore, having considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, at this stage this petition is disposed of directing respondents No. 2 & 3 to take appropriate steps pertaining to Enquiry Report (Annexure P-3) dated 16.10.2024 in accordance with law expeditiously. 6. With the aforesaid observations & directions, this petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.02.23 11:18:34 +0530