Pranjal Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5959 Chatt

                                                                               NAFR
                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPC No. 4124 of 2022


      Pranjal Shukla S/o Late Om Prakash Shukla, aged about 39 years R/o
        Near Aambagicha Sunder Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Petitioner

                                          Versus

     1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Urban
        Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,
        District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District: Raipur (C.G.)

     3. Krishi Upaj Mandi through its Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pandri
        Kapa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     4. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pandri, Raipur, District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 and 2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

For Respondent No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Judgment on Board

22.09.2022

1. The instant petition has been filed being aggrieved with the notice dated 25.08.2022 and 17.09.2022 issued by respondent No. 4 under Section 22 of Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, wherein, treating the petitioner as an encroacher an order has been passed that the premises of the petitioner would be demolished on 22.09.2022.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an Occupant/Tenant of one of the Godown's in old Ganj Mandi, Raipur (C.G.). The father of the petitioner was earlier paying the rent of Godown No. 2 and was running a business. After the death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner is running the business in the name of Gudda Goods Transport in Godown No. 2 in the Old Ganj Mandi, Raipur. The respondent No. 4 issued notice dated 25.08.2022 and thereafter on 17.09.2022 under Section 22 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, treating the petitioner as an encroacher and has ordered that the encroachment made by petitioner would be demolished on 22.09.2022. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to put forward his case before the concerned authority, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is prayed that the respondent authorities may be directed to follow the due process of law and grant a proper chance of hearing to the petitioner by conducting fair and just inquiry before passing any order. It is further prayed that the proposed demolition proceedings may kindly be dropped.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has only annexed the receipts related to the Mandi Shulk Vasooli of the year 2002, which has been issued in the name of father of the petitioner in the year 2002 itself. The petitioner has not filed any of the documents which shows that the Godown No. 2 has been alloted to the father of the petitioner nor the petitioner has

produced any receipt of the said Godown which shows that after the year of 2002, the petitioner had paid rent to the respondent No. 3. Notice dated 25.08.2022 was sent to the petitioner in spite of that he had not made any representation before respondent No. 3 and he had directly approached this Court on 21.09.2022, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief by this Court.

4. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Perused the documents annexed with the petition. There is no dispute on the point that in the year 2002 (as per Annexure-P/2) father of the petitioner paid some dues (Mandi Shulk Vasooli). Except the said receipt, the petitioner has not annexed any of the document which shows that Godown No. 2 have been alloted to father of the petitioner or to the petitioner himself. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in possession of the said disputed premise, therefore, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner prior to issuing of notice to him.

6. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation regarding his claim on the Godown/Shop/Premise before the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3 shall decide the same within two weeks thereof, as per law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. It is further directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Saurabh