1 CGHC010190032024 2026:CGHC:36840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2863 of 2024 1 - Mohammad Imtiyaz Khan S/o Mohammad Ahmed Khan, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Paloud, Tahsil - Mandir Hasoud, District- Raipur (C.G.) Mo. No. 9826420555. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Chief Executive Officer, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority, Paryawas Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Manager (Land) Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Rajkumar Sahu, Executive Magistrate Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Mo. No. 9407700709 6 - Neelam Singh Pisda, Executive Magistrate Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Mo. No. 7798463354 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhyudhay Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/08/2026 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 call for entire records of the case, from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-P/1) and further be please to quash the dispossession warrant dated 31.05.2024 issued by respondent no. 4 (Annexure-P/2), is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent authority to settle / allotment of the question land to the petitioner as per the circular for settlement/ allotment, is in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned eviction order has been passed without affording the petitioner a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. It is contended that, before initiating the proceedings for eviction and passing any 3 adverse order against the petitioner, the concerned authority was required to issue due notice and afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation and place the relevant material on record. Learned counsel submits that the action of the authorities, having been taken without adhering to the principles of natural justice and without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing, is unsustainable in law. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner was duly noticed and was afforded sufficient and effective opportunity of hearing in the proceedings. It is, therefore, contended that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice and the order passed by the competent authority does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 5. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has not been afforded a proper, reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken against him. Since observance of the principles of natural justice is an essential requirement before passing an adverse order affecting the rights or interests of a person, the matter deserves to be reconsidered by the competent authority after affording the petitioner due 4 opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the concerned authorities for reconsideration and for passing an appropriate order afresh, strictly in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner due and effective opportunity of hearing. 6. The interim order passed by this Court shall remain operative until the concerned authorities pass an appropriate order afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such interim protection shall continue until the fresh decision is taken by the competent authority in accordance with law. 7. Respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to afford the petitioner due and effective opportunity of hearing and to permit him to place on record all relevant documents and materials in support of his case. Thereafter, the competent authority shall consider the matter objectively and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The petitioner as well as the concerned respondent authorities shall be at liberty to produce and rely upon such documents and other relevant material as may be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. After considering the material so produced and after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the competent authority shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law. It is made clear that the interim order passed 5 by this Court shall remain in force till the fresh order is passed by the competent authority within the aforesaid period of 45 days. 9. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat