BRIJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


CGHC010138242021 2026:CGHC:45192

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHYNA
AJAY
WPC No. 2383 of 2021
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.10.27
18:27:22 +0530
Order Reserved on : 16.09.2026
Order Pronounced on 27.10.2026 :
Brijesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Aged About 41
Years R/o Ward No. 15, Lailunga Road, Gharghoda, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Panchayat and
Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
3 - Nagar Panchayat Gharghoda, Through - The Chief Municipal Officer,
Nagar Panchayat Gharghoda, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Harshal Chouhan, Advocate
For
Respondent/State
:
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate
For Respondent
:
Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
No.3

2
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner calls in question
the legality and propriety of the order dated 02.06.2021 passed by
Respondent No. 3 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat,
Gharghoda, District Raigarh, C.G.), whereby the allotment of
Shop Nos. 9 and 10 in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled
pursuant to certain complaints made against him before the
District Administration, Raigarh along with a consequential
direction commanding the petitioner to vacate and hand over
peaceful possession of the subject shops.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition :
10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare
that the order dated 02.06.2021 Annexure P-1 and
order dated 11.12.2020 Annexure P-2 are illegal, bad
in law.
10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash
the order dated dated 02.06.2021 Annexure P-1 and
order dated 11.12.2020 Annexure P-2 and permit the
petitioner to complete the remaining construction.
10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 3, a Nagar
Panchayat constituted under Section 5 of the C.G./M.P.

3
Municipalities Act, 1961, duly allotted Shop Nos. 9 and 10 situated
near Jaistambh, Gharghoda, to the petitioner for a period of three
years vide agreement dated 01.04.2019, which was subsequently
registered on 16.07.2019 (Annexure P/3). Owing to the
dilapidated condition of the subject shops, the petitioner filed an
application for renovation/reconstruction on 09.07.2020, which
was sanctioned by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated
10.09.2020 subject to certain conditions and the petitioner duly
deposited the requisite fees as demanded by Respondent No. 3.
Subsequently, the petitioner commenced construction, however,
abruptly and without justification, Respondent No. 3 passed an
order dated 11.12.2020 cancelling the permission (order) dated
10.09.2020 under the pretext of a proposal passed on 22.9.2017
by the Council of Nagar Panchayat, Gharghoda regarding
construction of a shopping complex over the said area.
Immediately upon receipt thereof, the petitioner submitted a
detailed representation/application on 15.12.2020 (Annexure P/7)
stating that the construction was being raised lawfully after
obtaining due permission. However, despite the petitioner acting
strictly in accordance with valid sanction, Respondent No. 3
issued notices dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure P/8) and 11.02.2021
(Annexure P/9) to stop construction, with which the petitioner fully
complied as communicated vide reply dated 15.02.2021
(Annexure P/10). Shockingly, without issuing any show cause
notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, Respondent No. 3
passed the impugned order dated 02.06.2021 (Annexure P/1)

4
cancelling the allotment and directing vacant possession, relying
upon an ex-parte order dated 25.05.2021 passed by the Collector,
Raigarh, which was never served upon the petitioner. It is alleged
that the impugned actions are illegal, arbitrary, violative of the
principles of natural justice and motivated by extraneous
considerations at the instance of local influential political persons
seeking to unlawfully dispossess the petitioner from the subject
premises. Hence, this Petition.
4. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
assisted by Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate, submits that the
petitioner submitted an application seeking allotment of a shop(s)
in the Shopping Complex at New Bus Stand, Gharghoda. On the
basis of the said application, the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar
Panchayat, Gharghoda (Respondent No. 3 herein) vide order
dated 01.04.2019 allotted Shop Nos. 9 & 10, situated near
Jaistambh, in favour of the petitioner for a period of three years.
Subsequently, on 16.07.2019, the said lease agreement was duly
registered. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as the
subject shops were in a dilapidated condition, the petitioner
submitted an application before Respondent No. 3 seeking
permission for their renovation and reconstruction. The said
application was duly considered by the competent authority and
vide order dated 10.09.2020, requisite permission was granted to
the petitioner to renovate/reconstruct the allotted shops, subject to
certain conditions. The petitioner strictly abided by all the
stipulated conditions and accordingly raised construction over the

5
premises. He further submits that the petitioner was regularly
remitting the agreed monthly rent in accordance with the terms of
the agreement executed between the parties. However, when the
reconstruction work was nearing completion, certain complaints
were lodged, whereupon Respondent No. 3 issued notices dated
04.01.2021 and 11.02.2021, directing the petitioner to halt further
construction. He submits that upon receiving verbal intimation to
suspend work, the petitioner personally met with the municipal
authorities, who informed him of the objections raised against the
construction. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner duly
submitted a reply to the said notices, confirming that although the
reconstruction was nearly complete by then, no further
construction had been raised thereafter and the petitioner
categorically submitted that no further construction would be
carried out. He strenuously contends that once a valid allotment of
the shop had been made and permission was duly granted to
renovate/reconstruct the same, such permission cannot
subsequently be withheld without plausible and cogent reasons
nor can the allotment itself be cancelled arbitrarily on this ground
alone.
5. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State submits that the
grievance of the petitioner is directed solely against Respondent
No. 3 (Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gharghoda)
regarding the impugned eviction orders dated 02.06.2021 and
11.12.2020 and no cause of action nor any specific relief has been
claimed against the State. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have been

6
impleaded merely as formal parties.
6. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3
submits that the impugned action taken by Respondent No. 3 is
completely valid and in accordance with law. He submits that the
allotment of Shop Nos. 9 & 10 near Jaistambh, Gharghoda, was
purely temporary and subject to the terms and conditions of the
agreement executed between the parties. Learned counsel further
submits that upon receipt of serious complaints from the ward
members and local residents regarding unauthorized and illegal
construction/reconstruction over the premises, which was found to
be detrimental to public interest and outside the scope of
permissible sanction, the matter was examined by the competent
Revenue Authorities. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.05.2021,
the Collector, District Raigarh, found the allotment and the
subsequent construction to be illegal and contrary to municipal
land use, thereby directing cancellation of the allotment and
recovery of vacant possession. He further submits that
Respondent No. 3, being an administrative authority bound by the
lawful directions of the District Collector and the statutory
obligations under the C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961, merely
executed the direction of the District Administration by passing the
impugned order dated 02.06.2021 directing the petitioner to stop
illegal construction and handover vacant possession. He further
submits that the original tenure of the allotment/lease granted to
the petitioner has already lapsed by efflux of time, thereby
disentitling the petitioner from seeking any relief to remain in

7
unauthorized occupation of public property. He, therefore, submits
that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the writ petition with utmost circumspection.
8. Evidently, the petitioner is in occupation of the subject shops on
the basis of a legally enforceable allotment executed in his favour
vide a registered agreement. A perusal of the impugned order
shows that it does not disclose any cogent reason whatsoever for
the cancellation of the allotment. Once a shop has been allotted
after following due process of law, such allotment cannot be
unilaterally cancelled without establishing valid reasons and
without affording an opportunity of hearing to the allottee. The
cancellation of allotment has been effected in utter disregard of
the principles of natural justice, which is manifestly clear on the
face of the impugned order/notice, rendering it legally
unsustainable.
9. Furthermore , the objection raised regarding the expiry of the
contractual period cannot be sustained at this stage for the reason
that the cancellation order was passed prior to the completion of
the lease term, and that too in an arbitrary manner in violation of
the principles of natural justice.
10.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.06.2021 (Annexure
P/1) is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of
the Respondent Authorities to pass appropriate orders afresh, if

8
they so desire, strictly after following due process of law and upon
affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
11.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Writ Petition
stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay