1 2026:CGHC:22112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 433 of 2023 1 - Manoj Kumar Das S/o Late Shri Krishna Chandra Das, Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Vidyapara, Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction as to quash/set-aside the impugned notices dated 19-01-2023 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not to disturb peaceful possession of the petitioner over Part of Khasra No.192/4, 5 situated beside the Bus Stand of the Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 10.3 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, by way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the demolition notice dated 19.01.2023 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove his possession and the construction raised over the land in question within a period of three days, failing which the respondent authorities have 3 threatened to forcibly demolish the said construction; it is submitted that the petitioner has constructed and is operating a restaurant over a portion of land bearing Khasra Nos. 192/4 and 192/5 admeasuring approximately 950 square feet situated near the Bus Stand at Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), and the petitioner along with his family members has been in peaceful possession and occupation of the said land since the years 1988– 89; it is further submitted that the petitioner has been continuously running the restaurant business from the said premises for several decades and the same constitutes the sole source of livelihood and means of sustenance for the petitioner and his dependent family members, who have no other independent source of income for their survival; according to the petitioner, the impugned demolition notice has been issued in an arbitrary and mechanical manner without properly considering the long-standing possession of the petitioner over the land in question, the nature of the establishment being operated thereon, and the grave civil consequences that would ensue upon demolition of the structure, thereby seriously affecting the livelihood and survival of the petitioner and his family members; being aggrieved by the arbitrary action and imminent threat of forcible demolition, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a small shop/restaurant over the land in 4 question and the concerned Municipal Council, Saraipali has issued directions for removal of the said establishment, compelling the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the demolition notice issued against him; it is further submitted that the petitioner has been carrying on his business from the said premises for a considerable period of time and the same constitutes the sole source of livelihood for him and his family members; learned counsel further submits that the Municipal Council, Saraipali has already constructed approximately 39 shops in the bus stand area and the petitioner can conveniently be accommodated in one of the said shops under the applicable rehabilitation policy or scheme framed by the authorities; it is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Municipal Council, including payment of rent and other charges as may be determined by the competent authority, and therefore an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider rehabilitation/allotment of a suitable shop in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the action taken by the respondent authorities is strictly in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Be that as it may, the concerned respondent Municipal Council, Saraipali is directed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and, in the event any vacant shop is available within the bus stand premises or under the control of the Municipal Council, the case of the petitioner may be considered for allotment of such shop in accordance with the applicable policy and rules, subject to the petitioner’s willingness to pay the prescribed rent and all other charges or amounts payable to the Municipal Council in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall submit an appropriate application before the competent respondent authority seeking allotment of the concerned land/shop in accordance with the applicable policy and rules, and upon such application being filed, the concerned respondent authorities shall duly consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within a reasonable period. 8. The petitioner is directed to submit an appropriate application before the competent respondent authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and upon such application being filed, the concerned respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same by passing an appropriate reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within a further 6 period of 30 days thereafter. 9. Till then, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land/premises presently under his occupation, though unauthorized, except in accordance with due process of law and subject to the decision to be taken by the competent respondent authorities on the application to be submitted by the petitioner pursuant to this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat