Sahakari Vipdan Sanstha Maryadit Mungeli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:24885

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2926 of 2026

¶6

1 - Sahakari Vipdan Sanstha Maryadit Mungeli Mungeli District Mungeli C.G. Through Its Manager Dinesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Lakhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 52 Years R/o Vivekanand Ward Mungeli Tehsil And District Mungeli C.G.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of CoOperative Societies Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur C.G.

¶10

2 - The Commissioner Co-Operative Societies Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur C.G.

¶11

3 - The Assistant Commissioner Co-Opertive Societies Mungeli District Mungeli C.G.

¶12

4 - The Collector/additional Collector Mungeli District Mungeli C.G.

¶13

5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Mungeli District Mungeli C.G.

¶14

6 - The Najool Officer Mungeli District Mungeli C.G.

¶15

7 - The Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Counsel Mungeli District Mungeli C.G.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

2

¶18

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

¶19

For Petitioner	: Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate
For State	: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G.
For Respondent No.	7 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate

¶20

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

19.06.2026

¶23

By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the letter dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued from the office of respondent No. 07, i.e., the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby the petitioner firm/Sanstha has been directed to remove its machines and articles within one week from the old building situated at Sheet No. 32, Khasra No. 2/1, area admeasuring 9341 sq. meters at Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.). It is further directed that the said building, wherein the petitioner is carrying on its activities, shall be demolished in compliance of the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mungeli (C.G.), as the said land has already been allotted by the Collector, Mungeli (C.G.) for construction of a new Municipal office building.

¶24

An order dated 28.12.1991 was passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Revenue Case No. 91/A-20(1)/1987-88, whereby lease was granted in favour of the

¶25

3

¶26

petitioner firm/Sanstha over land bearing Sheet No. 32, Khasra No. 2/1, area admeasuring 9341 sq. meters situated at Shivpur Road, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the purpose of running a Rice Mill and its godown. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner constructed the requisite building and commenced operation of “Kisan Rice Mill” along with storage of paddy and other articles in the godown. The petitioner has been continuously running the said Rice Mill without any irregularity; however, in the year 2018, without affording any proper opportunity of hearing, the respondents issued a demand notice and thereafter the respondent No. 04, in a mala fide manner, cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner over the said land. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) being Appeal Case No. 202007990100015/A-20(1), along with application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as applications under Sections 52 read with 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The appeal was initially taken up on 09.03.2021, wherein the delay was condoned and records from the courts below were called for; however, the same have not been received till date and the matter has been continuously adjourned. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, construction work of the new Municipal Council building at the site of the petitioner’s Rice Mill premises was initiated. The petitioner raised objections before the respondent authorities;

¶27

4

¶28

however, no action was taken thereon. Subsequently, respondent No. 07 issued the impugned letter dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), directing the petitioner to remove its machines and articles within one week, failing which the existing structure would be demolished in compliance of the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mungeli (C.G.), on the ground that the land has already been allotted by the Collector, Mungeli (C.G.) for construction of a new Municipal office building. Hence, the present petition.

¶29

Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-

¶30

“I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the respondents Authorities.

¶31

(ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to quash/Set-aside the letter dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued from the office of respondent No. 07/ The Chief Municipal officer, Municipal Counsel Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.), whereas petitioner firm/Sanstha has directed to remove their Machines/Articles within a week from the old building, build-up at Sheet No. 32, Khasara No. 2/1 area 9341 square meter at Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.) and same will be demolished in compliance of order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Mungeli (C.G.) and direction may also be given to the concern respondent to maintained the status-quo during pendency of the petitioner's Appeal No.

¶32

5

¶33

202007990100015/A-20 (1) before the Commissioner Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶34

(iii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent No. 07/ The Chief Municipal officer, Municipal Counsel Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) to stop the construction work of new Municipal Building Mungeli at the premises of Kishan Rice Mill Mungeli (C.G.), during pendency of the petitioner's Appeal No. 202007990100015/A-20 (1) before the Commissioner Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶35

(iv) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the Commissioner Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) to heard the petitioner's case No. 202007990100015/A-20 (1) within stipulated period of time.

¶36

v) Any other relief, which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favor of the petitioner.”

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice directing removal of machines and other articles has been issued by the concerned Nagar Palika Parishad through the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO), Mungeli, without taking into account that the petitioner has already filed an appeal challenging the cancellation of the lease. It is submitted that the said appeal has been pending consideration since the year 2020.

¶38

6

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7, on advance copy, submits that the lease in question has been granted in favour of respondent No. 7 and that he has been directed to construct a new building for the office of the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO), Mungeli. It is contended that, in the absence of any challenge to the said allotment order by the petitioner, no relief as prayed for can be granted in the present matter.

¶40

Learned State Counsel further submits that the pendency of an appeal, in the absence of any interim order, does not operate as a bar on the concerned authority from passing the impugned order.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the communication dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 07 directing removal of machines and articles from the premises in question within a stipulated period, on the ground that the existing structure is required to be demolished in compliance of an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mungeli, as the land has been allotted for construction of a Municipal office building.

¶43

The factual matrix, as emerges from the record, indicates that the petitioner was originally granted lease over the subject land by order dated 28.12.1991 passed by the Additional Collector,

¶44

7

¶45

Bilaspur, for the purpose of running a Rice Mill and godown. It is not in dispute that pursuant thereto, the petitioner established and has been running “Kisan Rice Mill” for a considerable period of time. It further appears that the said lease came to be cancelled by the competent authority in the year 2018, against which the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which is stated to be pending since the year 2020. It is also borne out from the record that the said appeal has been entertained, delay has been condoned, and records were called for, however, the appeal has not yet been finally decided.

¶46

At this stage, it is relevant to note that the challenge before this Court is not directed against the original order of cancellation of lease, but is confined to the subsequent communication directing removal of machines and consequential action proposed for demolition of the existing structure. The petitioner primarily seeks protection on the ground of pendency of appeal before the appellate authority. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the land has been allotted for a public purpose, namely construction of Municipal office building, and in absence of any interim protection granted by the appellate authority, mere pendency of appeal cannot operate as a legal bar on the authorities from taking consequential steps. Respondent No. 7 has further contended that unless the allotment order itself is challenged, no interference is warranted.

¶47

8

¶48

This Court is of the considered view that the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction, particularly in matters involving land allotment and administrative decisions taken in furtherance of public purpose, is limited. The petitioner admittedly has an effective statutory remedy of appeal, which is still stated to be pending consideration. It is well settled that where a competent appellate authority is seized of the matter, this Court ordinarily should not interdict parallel administrative action, particularly when no interim protection has been granted by the appellate authority restraining such action.

¶49

Further, the contention that pendency of appeal, in absence of any stay, creates an embargo on the respondents from proceeding further, cannot be accepted as a matter of law. Unless there is a specific restraint order passed by the appellate forum, the administrative authorities are not denuded of their power to proceed in accordance with law.

¶50

At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner’s appeal against cancellation of lease is still pending consideration since the year 2020. It is expected that such statutory appeal should be decided expeditiously by the competent authority so that the rights of the parties are finally adjudicated.

¶51

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error in the

¶52

9

¶53

impugned communication dated 14.05.2026 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶54

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the record, this Court does not find any material to interfere with the impugned order/communication. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the pending appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which is stated to be pending since the year 2020, and the said authority is expected to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶55

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶56

sd/-

¶57

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶58

Judge

¶59

Vishakha

Sahakari Vipdan Sanstha Maryadit Mungeli v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahakari Vipdan Sanstha Maryadit Mungeli 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kibaibalenga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramadhar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Dewangan Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Omkar Multispeciality Hospital Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narmada Prasad Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh