1 2026:CGHC:22995 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2538 of 2026 1 - Dharmendra Tembhurnikar S/o Ghanshyam Tembhurnikar Aged About 62 Years Proprietor Delhi Biryani Center, Telephone Exchange, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Tahsildar, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Bilaspur Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Station House Officer Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Harpal Singh Luthra S/o Malik Singh Luthra Aged About 57 Years R/o Gondpara, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anoop Majumdar, Senior Advocate with Siddhant Tiwari, Advocates. For State/Res : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, GA. For Respondent No.5 : Shri SS Baghel, Advocate. (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 14/05/2026 AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.18 16:12:31 +0530 2 1. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command and direct the respondent authorities no. 2 to 6 to forthwith take necessary protective measures to safeguard the rights of the petitioner and ensure that no irreparable injury is caused to him due to the unlawful acts of respondent no. 6. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command and direct, thereby restraining the respondent no. 7 from illegally demolishing or interfering with the peaceful possession and business activities of the petitioner in the rented shop premises. 10.3 Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1 is the State of Chhattisgarh; Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are officers functioning under Respondent No.1; and Respondent No.5 is a statutory body constituted under Article 243Q of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. The petitioner is a senior citizen and the sole proprietor of Delhi Biryani Center (hereinafter referred to as “the Shop” for the sake of brevity), a restaurant situated at Halka Patwari No. 22, Junabilaspur, Nagar Nigam Bilaspur, near Telephone Exchange, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). The petitioner has been running the said Shop at the present location since the year 2001. The petitioner has been lawfully and peacefully carrying on his business activities at the said premises since the year 2001 3 without any interruption and strictly in compliance with all statutory requirements. The petitioner has duly obtained and maintained all requisite licences, registrations and permissions as mandated under law. The business is being run from the rented premises belonging to Respondent No.7, and the petitioner has always discharged his obligations as a lawful tenant. The uninterrupted possession and legitimate operation of the petitioner’s business for over two decades establishes his lawful occupation and vested rights in the premises. The petitioner has been continuously operating his business under the trade name Delhi Biryani Center at the same premises since 2001 as a lawful tenant of Respondent No.7. The petitioner has regularly paid rent in accordance with the mutually agreed terms and has scrupulously complied with all conditions of tenancy. The long-standing tenancy and uninterrupted business operation for more than twenty years clearly demonstrate the petitioner’s lawful possession and accrued rights in respect of the premises. In a calculated and clandestine manner, Respondent No.7 commenced demolition of the outer portion of the un-tenanted part of the premises adjoining the petitioner’s Shop during the evening hours of 02.05.2026. Subsequently, in the intervening night of 10.05.2026, Respondent No.7, without any lawful authority, illegally demolished a portion of the tenanted premises lawfully occupied by the petitioner. Such arbitrary and high-handed action has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner, resulting in substantial damage to his 4 business establishment and unlawful interference with his peaceful possession. Being aggrieved by the unlawful acts of Respondent No.7, the petitioner immediately approached the competent authorities by lodging written complaints and seeking protection of his lawful tenancy and business rights. However, despite the seriousness of the matter, the respondent authorities have failed to take any prompt or effective action. The inaction on the part of the official respondents amounts to failure to discharge statutory duties and has virtually emboldened Respondent No.7 to continue with the illegal acts, thereby exposing the petitioner to irreparable loss and hardship. The petitioner is not challenging any specific order passed by the respondent authorities; rather, he is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court against their continued inaction and failure to act upon his complaint regarding the illegal demolition carried out by Respondent No.7. Despite repeated written representations and personal approaches, the authorities have not initiated any effective proceedings to safeguard the petitioner’s lawful possession and business, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to pursue his representation before the competent authority as Respondent No.7 is illegally demolishing the superstructure which was given on rent to the petitioner as the same is against the provisions of Section 35 of 5 Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has already filed an application before the competent authority in this regard, as such, the competent authority may be directed to decide the said application in accordance with law and till the said decision, Respondent No.7 be restrained from demolishing the superstructure rented to the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the other side would submits that if any application is filed before them, they will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in this regard within 20 days. 5. Having heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, learned State counsel appearing for the official respondents and counsel for Respondent No.5, and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents appended with the petition, this Court finds that the petitioner is not assailing any specific order passed by the authorities but has approached this Court complaining of inaction on the part of the statutory authorities in not considering his representation with regard to the alleged illegal demolition of the tenanted premises. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner claims to have already submitted an application before the competent authority raising grievance with respect to the action of Respondent No.7, alleging violation of the provisions of Section 35 of the Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984. 6. In view of the limited prayer now pressed and the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the application, if filed, will 6 be considered and decided within a reasonable time, this Court deems it appropriate, without entering into the merits of the rival claims of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the action alleged against Respondent No.7, to direct the competent authority to consider and decide the application/representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of 20 days from today, as if any application/representation is filed, it has to be decided and it can’t be kept pending. 7. Till 20 days from today, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner such as demolition. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Avinash