Ashok Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5960 Chatt

                                                                            NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             WPC No. 4123 of 2022


        Ashok Jaggi S/o Shri Roshan Lal Jaggi, aged about 65 years R/o
        Station Road, Raipur 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), Raipur Chhattisgarh.

     3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pandari Tarai (Kanpa) Raipur, through its
        Secretary, District: Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Respondents

        For Petitioner                 :        Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
        For State/Respondent
        No.1 and 2                     :        Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.
        For Respondent No. 3           :        Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate




                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                              Judgment on Board

22.09.2022

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

legality and validity of the Demolition Notice dated 17.09.2022

issued by respondent No. 3 under Section 22 of the Krishi Upaj

Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, wherein, treating the petitioner as an

encroacher an order has been passed by respondent No. 3 that the

premises of the petitioner would be demolished on 22.09.2022.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the Shops-in-

question i.e. Shop No. 2 and 3 situated at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,

Pandri-Tarai, Raipur have been obtained by the petitioner on rent

from the Patta holder of said shops i.e. Lekhraj (Patta Holder of

Shop No. 2) and Vijay Kumar Sonker (Patta Holder of Shop No. 3)

as per agreement (Annexure-P/2) and the petitioner continuously

paid rent to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. It is further submitted by

counsel for the petitioner that without providing any opportunity

of hearing the demolition notice dated 17.09.2022 was affixed on

the shops of the petitioner and without addressing any person it

has been ordered by the respondent No. 3 that the encroachment

would be demolished. The demolition notice has been affixed on

the shutter of the shop which is in clear violation of the principles

of natural justice and is 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 by counsel for the

petitioner 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 receipt related to the Mandi

Shulk Vasooli of the year 1999 and 2000. The petitioner has not

filed any of the documents which shows that the said Shops No. 2

and 3 were alloted to him or to the Patta holders of that shop i.e.

Lekhraj and Vijay Kumar Sonker. He further submits that eviction

notice is not addressed to the petitioner, therefore, the petition

filed by the petition is premature, therefore, the petitioner is not

entitled to get any relief by this Court.

4. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.

5. On perusal of the agreement (Annexure-P/2), it appears that

petitioner has obtained the shop No. 2 and 3 from Lekhraj and

Vijay Kumar Sonker respectively. On perusal of the receipts

Annexure-P/3 (Colly.), it also appears that the petitioner has paid

some dues (Mandi Shulk Vasooli) to the respondent No. 3. Though,

the petitioner has not filed any documents regarding the

allotment of the said shops to the Lekhraj and Vijay Kumar Sonker,

but as stated by counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is in

possession of the said shops, therefore, it would be appropriate

that prior to the notice of demolition a reasonable opportunity of

hearing should have been given to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to

make a fresh representation along with all relevant documents

within two weeks before the respondent No. 3. Thereafter,

respondent No. 3 shall decide the same within two weeks thereof,

as per law after providing 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