1 2026:CGHC:14017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2883 of 2020 1 - Ameer Das Manikpuri S/o Late Bhaktu Das Manikpuri Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Banipali, Amarkot, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3207 of 2020 1 - Shashibhushan Shrivas S/o Govardhan Shrivas, Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Saraipali, Police Station - Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub - Divisional Offier (Revenue), Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar, Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3210 of 2020 1 - Vinod Agrawal S/o Omprakash Agrawal Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Ward No. 3, Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department , Mahanadi Bhawan , Mantralaya , New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parishad , Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 5 - The Tahsildar Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner (in W.P.S. No. 2883 of 2020) : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For State : Mr. D. R. Minj, Dy. Advocate General For Resp. No. 3 (in W.P.S. No. 2883 and 3210 of 2020) : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 (in W.P.S. No. 3207 of 2020) : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. The factual matrix as well as the core issue involved in all these writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 2883 of 2020 is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the present batch of matters. The petitioner in the said petition has sought the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, setting-aside/quashing the impugned notice dated 09.10.2020 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive step against the petitioner. 4 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 4 & 5 to proceed for allotment of shop in question in favour of petitioner after taking the amount as fixed by the authorities, in accordance with law. 10.4 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner belongs to a poor and rustic family and is living below the poverty line. He has been in long-standing possession of a small piece of Government land forming part of Khasra No. 722/1, situated at Ward No. 5 (now Ward No. 3), Saraipali, where he has constructed a shop/house and has been carrying on a small business for several decades without any hindrance, objection, or protest from any quarter. The said shop, which is located approximately 60 feet away from the main road, constitutes the sole source of livelihood for the petitioner and his family. It is further the case of the petitioner that he has been regularly paying the requisite taxes/fees to the competent authorities. The petitioner submits that respondents No. 4 and 5 had earlier expressed their intention to allot the said land/shop in his favour upon payment of 150% of the prevailing market value, pursuant to which he duly submitted his consent and application; however, no further action has been taken by the authorities in this regard till date. It is further averred 5 that, all of a sudden, the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order-cum-notice directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment, failing which the structure would be demolished, and the articles therein seized at his cost. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the State Government order dated 11.09.2019, whereby directions were issued to settle Government land in favour of persons who were in possession prior to the year 2017. Despite approaching the authorities and ventilating his grievance, the petitioner contends that no heed has been paid, and he has been threatened that his shop may be demolished at any point of time. 3. Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner (in WPS No. 2883 of 2020) submits that the impugned notice (Annexure P-1) is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the said demolition notice has been issued by respondent No. 3 in a mechanical manner, without application of mind and in gross violation of the settled principles of law. In particular, it is urged that no prior show cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him before issuing the impugned notice, thereby rendering the same violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner belongs to a poor family living below the poverty line, and the shop in question is the sole source of livelihood for him and his family members. Learned counsel contends that if the 6 impugned action is permitted to be carried out, the petitioner and his family would be rendered shelterless and deprived of their only means of sustenance, forcing them into destitution. It is also argued that the petitioner has been in long-standing possession of the land in question for several decades and has been peacefully running his small business without any obstruction, protest, or objection from any authority. Learned counsel further submits that respondents No. 4 and 5 had themselves initiated a process for regularization/allotment of the said shop in favour of the petitioner upon payment of 150% of the prevailing market value. Acting upon such representation, the petitioner had approached the competent authority and expressed his willingness to comply with the said condition; however, despite such compliance, no further steps have been taken by the authorities for formal allotment. It is contended that, in such circumstances, the respondents are estopped from taking a contrary stand and issuing the impugned demolition notice. It is also urged that the petitioner’s shop is situated approximately 60 feet away from the main road and is not causing any obstruction, nor is it required to be removed for the purposes of any public project or governmental scheme. Therefore, the drastic action of demolition is wholly unwarranted and disproportionate. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notice has been issued during the period of the COVID- 19 pandemic, when the petitioner, like many others, had already suffered severe financial losses due to the lockdown. It is argued 7 that in such a precarious situation, removal of the petitioner’s shop would cause irreparable harm, as he would not be in a position to secure any alternative means of livelihood. It is also contended that the petitioner has been regularly paying the requisite taxes and fees to the competent authority without any default, which further reflects his bona fide conduct. Additionally, reliance is placed upon the State Government’s order dated 11.09.2019 issued by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, whereby directions were issued for rehabilitation of encroachers on abadi land and for grant of compensation in cases of eviction. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to consider or comply with the said policy while issuing the impugned notice. In sum, learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from his shop without following due process of law and without affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned notice be set aside and appropriate relief be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 in all the petitions vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merits, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the impugned notice dated 02.11.2020 has been issued strictly in accordance with law under Section 223 of the Chhattisgarh Municipality Act, 1961, directing the petitioner to remove 8 unauthorized encroachment over Government land admeasuring 56 sq. ft. situated near the main road in Khasra No. 722/1, Ward No. 3, Saraipali. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is an admitted encroacher, who has illegally occupied Government land by raising a temporary structure, and therefore, no legal right accrues in his favour so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. Learned counsel points out that under Sections 307 and 308 of the Act, 1961, a specific provision for appeal against a notice issued under Section 223 is available, and without exhausting the said remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court, which is impermissible in law. Refuting the contention of the petitioner regarding allotment/regularization under the Government circular dated 11.09.2019, learned counsel submits that the said plea is wholly misleading. It is contended that the petitioner had indeed applied for rehabilitation; however, his application was duly considered and rejected by the Tahsildar, Saraipali, vide order dated 24.07.2020 passed in Revenue Case No. 13-A/19(3)/2019-20. The said order has attained finality as the same has not been challenged before any competent forum. It is further submitted that, in any case, the scheme which had been floated by the State Government has already been withdrawn, and therefore, no right can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of 9 the said circular. It is further contended that the Government, being the owner of the land, is well within its rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India to protect its property and remove unauthorized encroachments. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, having no legal right over the encroached land, cannot seek protection from this Court, as the writ jurisdiction is meant to enforce legal rights and not to perpetuate illegality. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the controversy involved in the present batch of writ petitions arises out of issuance of notices under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipality Act, 1961 directing removal of alleged encroachments over Government land. 6. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned notices have been issued without affording them an opportunity of hearing and without due consideration of their claim for regularization/allotment in light of the Government circular dated 11.09.2019. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners are unauthorized encroachers over Government land, that the land in question is required for public purpose, and that an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute. It has also been contended that the claim of the petitioners for regularization has already been rejected by the competent authority and, in any case, the scheme relied upon by the petitioners stands withdrawn. 10 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Leelavathi N. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2253 has held as under : “35. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579, has held as under: “37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is 11 available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.” (Emphasis Supplied)” 8. In view of the above settled law, without entering into the merits of the rival claims and the legality or otherwise of the impugned notices, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are relegated to avail appropriate remedy before the competent authority. At the same time, considering the submission of the petitioners regarding absence of opportunity of hearing and their claim for consideration under the applicable policy, it would be appropriate to protect their right to approach the authority in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, while disposing of these writ petitions, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the concerned authority by filing appropriate applications, if so advised. Upon such applications being filed, the concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are left open to be considered by the competent authority. 12 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge