Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010028622021

2026:CGHC:29818

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 625 of 2021

¶7

1 - Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Hari Kishan Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Naya Ganj, Shaheed Chowk Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Mahesh Kankarwal S/o Shri Khushiram Kankarwal Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Mandir Chowk, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, 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 Municipal Corporation Raigarh Through Its Commissioner, Having Office At Nagar Nigam Building, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Nazul Officer Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶16

(Cause title is taken from CIS system)

¶17

For Petitioners	: Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate.
For Respondents/State No.1 & 3	: Ms. Shailja Shukla, G.A.
For Respondent No.2	: Dr. Sudeep Kumar Agrawal, Advocate

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶20

Order On Board

¶21

14/07/2026

¶22

Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶23

“(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.

¶24

(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 Petitioners before implementation of any development plan near Shaheed Chowk, Raigarh, (C.G.).

¶25

(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 demolition of petitioners shop for implementation of any development plan near shaheed Chowk Raigarh, (C.G.), till the pendency of this writ petition before the Hon'ble Court.

¶26

(iv) 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

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

¶28

3

¶29

At the outset, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that as of now, grievance raised by petitioner No.2 has been satisfied pursuant to the subsequent development taken place as petitioner No.2 has been settled with land bearing Nazul Sheet No. 58, Plot No.72/1 measuring 60 sq.ft.. He further submits that now the relief as claimed in the writ petition is remaining with respect to petitioner No.1 only. He contended that petitioner No.1 is in possession of land bearing Sheet No.58, Plot No.69, Tahsil and District Raigarh measuring 1200 sq.ft. and running tea and snacks center for the purpose of earning his livelihood. He contended that petitioner is in possession and running his business since 1994 and maintaining his family from the income of that shop. Petitioner has also moved an application for settlement of said land on 28.03.2003. When application was not considered, petitioner has again submitted application on 19.02.2010 and thereafter on 06.11.2015. In the application petitioner has specifically mentioned that said land may be allotted to petitioner on rent. Application submitted by petitioner was placed before Mayor In Council (MIC), however, no final decision has been taken on the application submitted by petitioner till date. Learned counsel further submits that during pendency of the claim/application of petitioner No.1 on the land, temporary superstructure constructed over land was initially demolished by respondent/Corporation, which made petitioner to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. He submits that considering the nature of grievance raised and pleadings made in the writ petition, this Court has granted interim relief in their favour of not to dispossess petitioners from subject land till the next date of

¶30

4

¶31

hearing. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 is also in possession of the said land, therefore, relief as claimed for be granted.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner No.1 and would submit that petitioner No.1 is admittedly encroacher. Land is recorded in maintenance khasra as nazul land. Till date petitioner No.1 has not submitted any application before the competent authority. He however, submits that additional documents which is filed with respect to petitioner No.2, settlement is made by appropriate authority in accordance with circular dated 11.09.2019. Allotment of the land is dated 21.10.2021, however, subsequently, in the year 2024, the said circular was withdrawn by the State Government. Lastly he he submits that in view of the pleadings made in the writ petition, application submitted by petitioner No.1 is also sent to MIC through Commissioner, therefore, if this Court thinks it proper, respondent No.2/Commissioner may be directed to consider and take decision on the pending application.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

From the pleadings made in the writ petition, petitioner has earlier submitted an application before the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh on 28.03.2002, 19.02.2010, 06.11.2025 and according to the pleadings made, application submitted by petitioner has been forwarded through the Commissioner vide note sheet (Annexure P-3) before MIC for its decision.

¶35

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that according to revenue records now it is the Municipal Corporation,

¶36

5

¶37

Raigarh, who is maintaining nazul land within its territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the Commissioner/respondent No.2 would be competent authority to consider the claim of petitioner No.1 for grant of land.

¶38

On due consideration on the submission of learned counsel for respective parties, nature of grievance raised in particular the grievance of petitioner No.1 with respect to the allotment of land on which he is running tea and snacks center since 1994 for earning his livelihood I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing respondent No.2 to consider and take decision on the application submitted by petitioner No.1, which is stated to have been forwarded to the MIC in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within further period of three months from the date of receipt of order.

¶39

Till decision of the application submitted by petitioner No.1 by respondent No.2/Commissioner/Municipal Corporation, interim order as passed by this Court dated 29.01.2021 shall remain in force.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.

¶41

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

Balram

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Sharma 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

Manikant Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Susanna Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh