Disposed

Sevak Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026WPC/823/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the demolition of his hotel property and sought compensation and alternative accommodation. Respondents 6 and 7 offered to allot two shops to the petitioner in lieu of the demolished premises. The court accepted this arrangement and directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities within 15 days, after which the authorities shall hand over possession of the two shops within 30 days. The petitioner retains liberty to seek further relief if the arrangement is not complied with.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach authorities within 15 days; authorities to hand over possession of two shops within 30 days thereafter. Liberty to seek further relief if arrangement not complied with.

Sevak Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

CGHC010057982023

2026:CGHC:40794

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 823 of 2023

¶8

1 - Sevak Nishad S/o Hemsingh Nishad Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No.15, Nagar Palika Parishad, Gariyaband, Tashil And District - Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - The Commissioner, Raipur Division, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - The Collector, DistrictGariyaband (C.G.)

¶14

4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gariyaband, DistrictGariyaband (C.G.) 5 - The Tahsildar, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 6 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Gariyaband, - District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶15

7 - Tamsan Ratre, Posted As Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	:	Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondents No. 6 &	:	Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate.
7

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

18/09/2026

¶22

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶23

reliefs:-

¶24

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities.

¶25

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to remove the petitioner from the land bearing khasra no. 911/12 admeasuring area 51 sq.mtr. situated at Village Gariyaband, Tahsil & DistrictGariyaband (C.G.).

¶26

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay adequate damages compensation of Rs. 70,05,000/- to the petitioner towards forceful demolition of property of petitioner. and for mental harassment, in accordance with law.

¶27

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to take appropriate action against the respondent no. 7 for forceful demolition of

¶28

¶29

property of petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶30

10.5 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶31

10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure P/12) and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal on its own merits.”

¶32

Learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 submits that the petitioner was operating a hotel near the passenger waiting shed situated at Ward No. 09, Bus Stand, within the limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Gariyaband. It is further submitted that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Gariyaband has provided two shops to the petitioner for operating the said hotel and that the work of installing shutters in the said shops was completed on 04.02.2023. The petitioner was accordingly informed that he could operate the hotel from the said shops. Learned counsel further submits that the concerned authorities are ready to hand over the two shops to the petitioner in lieu of the shop which, according to the petitioner, was demolished. He, therefore, submits that the present petition may be disposed of in view of the aforesaid arrangement.

¶33

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection if respondents No. 6 and 7 allot and hand over possession of the two shops to him. However, he

¶34

¶35

submits that, in case the said shops are not allotted or possession is not handed over to the petitioner, he may be granted liberty to approach the concerned authorities for appropriate relief.

¶36

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

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authorities within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the concerned authorities shall hand over possession of the two shops to the petitioner, as stated by learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 in their affidavit, within a further period of 30 days.

¶38

It is made clear that if the aforesaid arrangement is not complied with, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the concerned authorities and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.

¶39

With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed

¶40

of .

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶43

Raghu Jat

Sevak Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sevak Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases