1 CGHC010410732025 2026:CGHC:36694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5035 of 2025 1 - Rajkumar Dwivedi S/o Late B.P. Dwivedi Aged About 52 Years R/o Sahgal Gali, Vidyanagar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Nagar Palik Nigam, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For State/Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate. For Intervener : Mr. Satyanarayan Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.22 15:45:12 +0530 2 “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the notices given by the respondent No. 3. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the notices dated 04.08.2025, 19.08.2025, and 01.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3. 10.3 Any other relief/relief’s which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as adumbrated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property situated at Sai Plaza, Juna Bilaspur, Patwari Halka No. 22, Khasra No. 202, R.N.M. Bilaspur, Block-Bilha, Tahsil and District-Bilaspur, falling within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, bearing Bhumi Seat No. 9, Block No. 5, Plot Nos. 56/3 and 56/2, Khasra Nos. 662/1 and 662/2, admeasuring 174 sq. ft., which was purchased by him from one Deepak Khandelwal by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3, acting upon complaints dated 04.08.2025, 19.08.2025 and 01.09.2025, initiated proceedings against him alleging encroachment upon the adjoining/extended land and operation of a “Chakhna Centre” from the premises. The petitioner disputes the aforesaid allegations as false, baseless and actuated by personal animosity, and contends that the premises comprises a duly registered shop owned by him, wherein a family restaurant is being operated by his tenant, and that no encroachment has been made upon the adjoining land. Aggrieved by the action initiated by 3 respondent No. 3 on the basis of the aforesaid complaints and allegations, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he has removed the encroachment and undertaking that he shall not make any encroachment in future. He further submits that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had also placed on record photographs demonstrating that the encroachment made by him had already been removed. He further submits that, during the course of hearing today, the petitioner has reiterated his undertaking that he shall not make any encroachment in future or raise any construction upon the encroached land. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, he prays that the petition may be disposed of. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that, on a careful perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner has neither specifically stated nor undertaken that he has discontinued the temporary munchies shop, commonly referred to as a “Chakhna Shop”, as mentioned in Annexure P-1. He further submits that the undertaking given by the petitioner is confined only to removal of the alleged encroachment and to an assurance that no encroachment or construction would be made in future, whereas there is no specific averment with regard to discontinuance of the 4 aforesaid shop. He next contends that the affidavit filed by the petitioner does not constitute complete and effective compliance with the directions of this Court and, in the absence of a clear undertaking regarding discontinuance of the “Chakhna Shop”, the same cannot be treated as being in accordance with the law. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is found that, although the petitioner has stated that he will not make any further encroachment by extending his shop, nothing has been stated in the affidavit with regard to running of the “Chakhna Shop” (Munchies Shop). During the course of hearing, when the petitioner was specifically queried in this regard, he submitted that he has already stopped running the Chakhna Shop and undertook that he would not run the same in future. In view of the aforesaid pious submission made before this Court, the petitioner is directed not to make any encroachment in future and not to start or run a Chakhna Shop in future. He is further directed not to create any hindrance or disturbance which may result in breach of peace and tranquility of the concerned neighbours, including the intervener. However, the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.), as well as the intervener, shall be at liberty to file a complaint against the petitioner, in accordance with law, in the event of any breach of the conditions of the affidavit or the directions issued by this Court. 5 6. Ex consequenti, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju