1 / 7 CGHC010020762021 2026:CGHC:36100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 627 of 2021 1 - Shyam Swaroop Gupta S/o Late Shri R.S. Gupta Aged About 64 Years Resident Of House No. 09, Bhagat Singh Square, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon 491441, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Pratibha Gupta W/o Late Shri K.S. Gupta Aged About 58 Years Resident Of House No. 09, Bhagat Singh Square, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon 491441, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aditya Swaroop Gupta S/o Late Shri K.S. Gupta Aged About 30 Years Resident Of House No. 09, Bhagat Singh Square, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon 491441, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gopal Swaroop Gupta S/o Late Shri K.S. Gupta Aged About 24 Years Resident Of House No. 09, Bhagat Singh Square, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon 491441, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.08.17 11:37:47 +0530 2 / 7 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Urban Administration And Development , Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner, Rajnandgaon , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vibhore Goverdhan, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2/State : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No.3/Corporation : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 To set aside the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the respondent No.2. 10.2 To issue a show-cause notice to the respondent No. 2 as to why there has been delay in the adjudication of the grievances of the petitioner. 10.3 To direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner in an expeditious manner. 10.4 To pass such other order/orders and / or give such other direction/directions as the justice of the case may demand; and in this act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever remain grateful to this Hon’ble Court. 3 / 7 10.5 To set aside the order dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure-P/8) passed by respondent No.3.” 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are owner of the land bearing kh. no.53/1 admeasuring 10.75 acres situated at P.H. No.42 Lakholi, District- Rajnandgaon. Out of the said area of land, about 3.30 acres was divided into 54 individual pieces of agricultural land of different dimensions. Concerned Halka Patwari describing the dimensions of individual plots has prepared the layout. Initially on 11.03.1976, a show cause notice was issued by Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon stating that the petitioners have violated provisions of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 and Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 came into force w.e.f. 22.06.1973, whereas, the layout prepared by the Patwari was of 05.04.1973, as such, there was no violation of provisions of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. Pursuant to notice issued, reply was submitted by petitioners and thereafter no proceeding was initiated, from which, it was inferred that proceedings initiated was closed. Surprisingly on 31.08.2019 an order Annexure P-1 was passed by the Collector mentioning different khasra numbers which also includes kh. no.53/1 owned by petitioners at Sr. No.96. Municipal Corporation also published a memo vide Annexure P-5 dated 10.10.2019 calling objection/reply from the land owners and all the interested persons of the land mentioned therein which also includes the land of petitioners 4 / 7 bearing kh. no.53/1 along with other lands of Village- Lakholi. As in the memo Annexure P-5 there is mentioned that the interested persons/owners of land shall submit their written reply/representation in the prescribed format, petitioners submitted written reply/objection on 22.10.2019 within a period of 12 days from the date of publication of memo. The period prescribed for submission by the interested persons/land owners was 15 days from the date of publication of memo and therefore the petitioners submitted their claim within the time as prescribed in the memo. Respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation thereafter had passed an order dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure P-8) whereby khasra numbers/land mentioned therein were ordered to be removed from list of illegal colonies, subject to fulfillment of conditions as mentioned therein, which also mentions the land owned by petitioners i.e. kh. no. 53/1 of the Village – Lakholi. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in the order dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure P-8), there is no whisper of consideration of reply/claim submitted by the petitioners pursuant to memo issued by the Municipal Corporation on 10.10.2019 published in the newspaper, from which it is clearly appearing that explanation offered by way of written reply to the memo is not considered and therefore the order dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure P-8) is in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that proper procedure has been adopted by respondent No.3 before passing of order Annexure P-8 dated 03.04.2021. He 5 / 7 contended that from documents enclosed along with reply itself it is apparent that respondent No.3 has called for reply/explanation from the land owners/interested persons of the land description of which is mentioned in memo Annexure P-5 published under the signature of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon. It appears that petitioners have not submitted reply within the time prescribed and therefore no relief as prayed for by them can be granted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. One argument which is raised by learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners is that order Annexrue P-8 dated 03.04.2021 passed by respondent No.3 is in violation of principles of natural justice as the reply/explanation submitted by petitioners pursuant to memo dated 10.10.2019 published under the signature of respondent No.3/Commissioner was not considered before passing the order Annexure P-8 dated 03.04.2021. 6. Perusal of Annexure P-5 i.e. memo dated 10.10.2019 would show that Commissioner Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon had published memo under the head- “notice of land management” and reading of contents of memo would clearly reveal that it is in the form of show cause notice to land owners and interested persons. The land owners and interested persons of the land, description of which is mentioned therein were also asked to make their submission and present their case and if submission is not made by owners/interested persons within the prescribed time as mentioned therein, then management of land will be taken under their control. 6 / 7 7. Annexure P-6 is a reply/explanation submitted by petitioners on 22.10.2019 i.e. within the period of 15 days as mentioned in memo Annexure P-5 . As stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the explanation/submission is made by the petitioners in the prescribed format as mentioned in Annexure P-5 dated 10.10.2019, giving all the details, perusal of the order dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure P-8) would show that respondent No.3 while passing order have not taken into consideration the reply submitted by petitioners pursuant to memo dated 10.10.2019. When respondent No.3 has asked the land owners and interested persons to put-up their case before the concerned authority who issued memo, and the petitioners once have put up the case in writing explaining their conduct and facts and events, then minimum which is required by respondent No.3 is to take into consideration the explanation offered, reply given by petitioners before arriving at conclusion. No such exercise has been done by respondent No.3. 8. As the reply submitted by petitioners and explanation submitted to memo dated 10.10.2019 was not considered, in the opinion of this Court, order dated 03.04.2021 so far as it relates to land bearing kh. no.53/1 is concerned is without hearing the petitioners and, therefore, the order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order dated 03.04.2021 so far as it relates to kh. no. 53/1 is not sustainable and it is quashed so far as it relates to land bearing kh. no.53/1 owned by petitioners. 9. Respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation is at liberty to take fresh decision with respect to land bearing kh. no.53/1 considering the reply/explanation offered by petitioner vide Annexure P-6 pursuant to 7 / 7 memo dated 10.10.2019 Annexure P-5, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 10. So far as challenge to Annexure P-1 is concerned, if petitioners are not satisfied with the decision taken by respondent No.3, they can file fresh proceeding in accordance with law challenging all the orders which they feel to be adverse to them including Annexure P-1. 11.Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. Sd/Sd Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen