1 CGHC010257382026 2026:CGHC:28804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3570 of 2026 1 - Shimlavati Minj W/o Shivlal Minj, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Gangapur, Nalapara Road, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). 2 - Shivlal Minj S/o Kendwa Minj aged about 45 years, R/o Village Gangapur, Nalapara Road, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector, Surguja Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). 3 - Tahsildar, Nazul, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Additional A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 10/07/2026 1. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate application before the competent authority ventilating his grievance. It is, however, submitted that in the present case, no eviction notice has been issued to the petitioners and in the absence of the same, the authorities have demolished the disputed property of the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed that the competent authority be directed to consider and decide the applications, proposed to be filed by the petitioners, within some stipulated time. It is further prayed that till disposal of such applications, the competent authority be restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners. 2. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners are now seeking to derive benefit from an application dated 28.10.2016 by taking recourse to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nagariya Kshetron Ke Awasheen Vyakti Ko Pattadhariti Adhikar Niyam, 2023, which came into force only in the year 2023. According to the learned State counsel, the benefit of the said Rules cannot be extended retrospectively. It is also submitted that the superstructure allegedly raised by the petitioner has already been demolished. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot now seek protection against dispossession from the property in question, and therefore no indulgence is warranted by this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the competent authority/forum having jurisdiction over the matter and file an appropriate application within a period of 15 days from today. In the 3 event such application is filed within the stipulated period, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 45 days, strictly in accordance with law. Till the decision on the application to be filed by the petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 5. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju