Lal Bahadur Rajput (Died and Deleted) through Lrs Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 /

CGHC010200412021

2026:CGHC:30311

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3241 of 2021

¶7

1 - Lal Bahadur Rajput (Died And Deleted) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18.07.2025

¶8

1.1 - Smt. Binita Rajput, W/o Late Lal Bahadur Rajput, Aged About 36 Years R/o 8/1, Near Bus Stand, Ward No. 7, Ahirwara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Nagar Panchayat Ahiwara, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Having Office At Nagar Panchayat, Ahiwara, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Ishan Verma,Advocate
For Res. No.1	: Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer
For Resp. No.2	: Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.20 10:41:46 +0530

¶16

2 /

¶17

16/07/2026

¶18

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

¶21

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and direct the Respondents to produce entire records pertaining to the present case for its kind perusal.

¶22

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondents more particularly to Respondent No. 2 by directing him to submit a detailed plan with respect to grant of just and fair compensation as well as adequate alternative arrangement for the Petitioner before implementation of any auction processes at Bus Stand Ahiwara District Durg, (C.G.).

¶23

(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondents more particularly to Respondent No. 2 by directing them to not proceed with the dispossession of petitioner shop at Bus Stand Ahiwara, District Durg, (C.G.), till the pendency of this writ petition before the Hon'ble Court.

¶24

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondents more particularly to Respondent No. 2 by directing them to allot the shop which is in possession of the petitioner at bus Stand Ahiwara Durg in favour of the petitioner as assured by the respondent.

¶25

3 /

¶26

(v) That, any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.

¶27

(vi) That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially allotted a land on patta in the year 2003 and based on the patta given to him, he was in possession of the land by constructing a house over it. After some time, in the year 2008, respondent No.2 /Nagar Panchayat has removed some of the construction of the petitioner/possession of petitioner from the land allotted to him on patta and has constructed shops on it and other adjoining land. At the time of construction of shops and removing possession of the petitioner over the land, it was orally intimated that petitioner will be allotted one shop on priority basis. However, after completion of construction of shops which are about 10 in numbers, preferential allotment was not made to petitioner and respondent No.2/Nagar Panchayat has initiated proceeding for allotment of shops by way of auction proceeding. Subsequently, when the agitation is made by petitioner and other like persons, Nagar Panchayat has drawn proceeding in its meeting dated 11.07.2013 to identify as to who were in possession of the land prior to construction of shops and the name of petitioner is also mentioned therein. He contended that when petitioner was not accommodated and further action is taken for removing possession of petitioner from other portion of land, writ

¶29

4 /

¶30

petition is filed. He contended that as the petitioner’s possession from part of the land allotted in patta has been removed on which shopping complex is constructed by Nagar Panchayat, respondent authority may be directed to consider claim of petitioner by allotting one shop for the purpose of earning his livelihood and to maintain his family.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that it is not in dispute that some portion of the land is allotted to petitioner on patta on which according to his instruction, petitioner is in possession by constructing a house. He submits that shop is constructed on the land adjacent to the land allotted to petitioner. Petitioner may be in possession of land by surrounding the other land than that was allotted to him on patta. The shops were constructed in the year 2008, but till date, entire auction proceeding for allotment of 10 shops could not be finalized and are still lying as it as. He submits that according to his instructions, some of the shops are in dilapidated conditions and therefore if petitioner submits fresh application/representation before the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Ahiwara, his claim will be considered in accordance with law.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition.

¶33

Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that petitioner is in possession of the land allotted to him on patta by constructing a house over it, is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The undisputed fact is that 10 shops are constructed

¶34

5 /

¶35

by respondent No.2/Nagar Panchayat in the year 2008 but till date those shops are lying vacant without any use. Definitely the unused building will be damaged by passage of time and as of now about 18 years has already been elapsed from the date of construction of 10 shops.

¶36

By allotting shops, respondent No.2 may also generate some revenue and therefore keeping in mind the claim of petitioner that shops have been constructed on the land which was possessed by him, petitioner is permitted to submit fresh application/ representation before respondent No.2/Nagar Panchayat and if such representation is submitted, respondent No.2/Nagar Panchayat shall consider the representation sympathetically and decide the same expeditiously within a further period of 3 months from the date of receipt of representation.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶39

Praveen

Lal Bahadur Rajput (Died and Deleted) through Lrs v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur Rajput (Died and Deleted) through Lrs 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

Suresh Jaiswal Vs Vijay Kumar Sidar

Vikram Tejwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Shankar Rao Kher Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushma Agrawal, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shelly Sonkar Vs Union of India

Dr. Gaurishankar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh