Shri Kishan Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And Rural Development Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur P.S, Civil Line Post- Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Sakti P.S. Sakti District Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Nagar Palika Parishad Sakti P.S. Sakti District Sakti (C.G.)

¶11

4 - President Nagar Palika Parishad Sakti P.S. Sakti District Sakti (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

16/07/2025

¶17

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶18

“10.1 To kindly direct the respondents to

¶19

provide the alternate shop to the petitioner.

¶20

10.2 To kindly direct the respondent to

¶21

2

¶22

return the amount paid by the petitioner in installments total of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest from dated 15.06.2011 to the petitioner.

¶23

10.3 To kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for allotment of shops by giving them preference at newly constructed commercial complex.

¶24

10.4 To direct the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner within a prescribed period.

¶25

10.5 Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is small enterpreneur and is running various small businesses and had participated in the auction proceeding for the shops situated at Guru Nanak complex, Budhwari Bazar, Sakti. The auction for allotment of shops in Gurunanak Complex which was built by the Municipality in Budhwari Bazaar was done by the respondents on 22.06.2011. At the time of auction, petitioner had bid in relation to get one of the 24 shops floated in the auction. The petitioner had participated in the auction proceeding and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the

¶27

3

¶28

petitioner to participate in auction and shop no. 9 was allotted to him. Respondent no. 2 (Chief Municipal Officer) issued notices to all the small shop keepers to remove their encroachment on 20.02.2023. When no one was found at place the notices were affixed at the walls of the complex and on the next day the complex was demolished. Petitioners made a request to the Respondent no. 2 and 3 that they are ready to vacate/remove their shops/gumti/thela and prayed for providing them with some alternate place/shop so that they can run their business. The Sub Divisional Officer and Chief Municipal Officer promised the petitioner that they would be allotted shops in the proposed commercial complex to be constructed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti. The petitioner made representation from time to time with the prayer that they may be given preference in allotment of their shops on the proposed commercial complex. On 14.01.2025 the petitioner made representation before the respondent authorities to either provide the alternate shop or return the amount paid by the petitioner in installments total of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest but till today they have not decided the same.

¶29

Learned State counsel submits that grievance of the petitioner is against respondent no. 2 to 4 and he is not representing those respondents.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed with the record of the writ petition.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties and also nature of grievance raised in this writ petition that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount towards shop no. 9 situated at Guru Nanak Complex, Budhwari Bazar, Sakti but the shop is not allotted

¶32

4

¶33

to her and at a later point of time, entire complex was demolished by respondent no. 2 to 4, without entering into the merits of the case, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, at this stage, directing respondents no. 2 to 4 to take decision on the representation submitted by petitioner in accordance with law.

¶34

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents no. 2 to 4 to take decision on the representation submitted by petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed by this Court.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

Madhurima

Shri Kishan Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kishan Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prateek Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhanu @ Ajay Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Mata Di Women Self Help Group- Chouha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhanshu Bhushan Singh Vs Smt. Sunita Singh

Pramod Kumar Buxy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh