RAJKUMAR DWIVEDI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010366852026 2026:CGHC:46819
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 355 of 2026
1 - Rajkumar Dwivedi S/o Late B. P. Dwivedi Aged About 53 Years R/o
Sahgal Gali Vidyanagar, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Urban Administration And
Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa
Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G.
2 - Collector Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G.
3 - Commissioner Nagar Palik Nigam Bilaspur Division Distt. Bilaspur C. G.
Satya Narayan Pandey S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Pandey Age 37
•
Years, R/o Bilaspur C.G. (Respondent In Person) (Proposed
Intervenor).
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, GA.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachwaha, Advocate.
For proposed Intervenor : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
04/11/2026
1. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review/recall of order dated
17.08.2026 passed in WPC No.5035 of 2025 {Rajkumar Dwivedi vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and Others}.

2
2. WPC No.5035 of 2025 was filed for the following reliefs:-
“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call the entire record pertaining to the notices given by
the respondent No. 3.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash/set-aside the notices dated 04.08.2025,
19.08.2025, and 01.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by
the respondent No. 3.
10.3 Any other relief/relief’s which may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
also be allowed.”
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the writ petition
was filed on the following factual backdrop that review petitioner is the
registered owner of the property situated at Sai Plaza, Juna Bilaspur,
Patwari Halka No. 22, Khasra No. 202, R.N.M. Bilaspur, Block-Bilha,
Tahsil and District-Bilaspur, falling within the limits of the Municipal
Corporation, bearing Bhumi Seat No. 9, Block No. 5, Plot Nos. 56/3
and 56/2, Khasra Nos. 662/1 and 662/2, admeasuring 174 sq. ft., which
was purchased by him from one Deepak Khandelwal by way of a
registered sale deed dated 13.12.2001. It was the case of the petitioner
that respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation, acting upon complaints
dated 04.08.2025, 19.08.2025 and 01.09.2025, initiated proceedings
against him alleging encroachment upon the adjoining/extended land
and operation of a “Chakhna Centre” from the premises. The petitioner
disputed the aforesaid allegations as false, baseless and actuated by
personal animosity, and contends that the premises comprises a duly
registered shop owned by him, wherein a family restaurant is being

3
operated by his tenant, and that no encroachment has been made
upon the adjoining land. Aggrieved by the action initiated by
respondent No. 3 on the basis of the aforesaid complaints and
allegations, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that after hearing the
parties, this Court observed in paragraph No.5 of the said order that
since that petitioner therein/ review petitioner herein has specifically
submitted that he has stopped running the Chakhna shop and
undertook that he would not run the same in the future and the review
petitioner was also directed to not to create any hindrance or
disturbance which may result in breach of peace and tranquility of the
concerned neighbours including the Intervenor.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the review
petitioner has never run a Chakna shop in the first place let alone stop
running it. He submits that only a small family restaurant is being run in
his premises for which he has obtained license from Municipal
Corporation. He submits that since the review petitioner never
submitted that he ran a Chakhna shop, as such, a direction to stop
running it is unwarranted. As such, he prays this Court for deletion or
substitution of the sentence “ During the course of hearing, when the
petitioner was specifically queried in this regard, he submitted that
he has already stopped running the Chakhna Shop and undertook

4
that he would not run the same in future” from paragraph No.5,
which reads as under:-
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is found that,
although the petitioner has stated that he will not make any
further encroachment by extending his shop, nothing has
been stated in the affidavit with regard to running of the
“Chakhna Shop” (Munchies Shop). During the course of
hearing, when the petitioner was specifically queried in this
regard, he submitted that he has already stopped running
the Chakhna Shop and undertook that he would not run the
same in future. In view of the aforesaid pious submission
made before this Court, the petitioner is directed not to
make any encroachment in future and not to start or run a
Chakhna Shop in future. He is further directed not to create
any hindrance or disturbance which may result in breach of
peace and tranquility of the concerned neighbours,
including the intervener. However, the respondent-Municipal
Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.), as well as the intervener, shall
be at liberty to file a complaint against the petitioner, in
accordance with law, in the event of any breach of the
conditions of the affidavit or the directions issued by this
Court.
6.
Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that in the writ petition,
the review petitioner had filed an affidavit, however, in the said affidavit,
the review petitioner had neither specifically stated nor undertaken that
he has discontinued the temporary munchies shop, commonly referred
to as a “Chakhna Shop”. He further submits that the undertaking given
by the review petitioner in the affidavit was confined only to removal of

5
the alleged encroachment and to an assurance that no encroachment
or construction would be made in future, whereas there was no specific
averment with regard to discontinuance of the aforesaid shop.
Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the order under review does
not warrant any interference.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with petition carefully.
8. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, it appears that the controversy raised in the writ petition
was not confined merely to the alleged encroachment but also
pertained to the operation of a Chakhna Shop from the subject
premises. It is in the backdrop of the allegations raised in this regard
that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, recorded the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to
discontinuance of the Chakhna Shop and issued consequential
directions.
9. The review petitioner, by way of the present review petition, seeks
reconsideration of the aforesaid observation on the ground that he had
never operated such a shop. However, the said contention essentially
seeks to reopen the factual aspects which were considered by this
Court while disposing of the writ petition. No error apparent on the face
of the record or any other ground warranting exercise of the review
jurisdiction has been made out. It is also pertinent to observe that the

6
directions issued by this Court were intended to ensure that no
encroachment is made and no activity is undertaken which may give
rise to any disturbance or breach of peace in the locality. During the
course of hearing in this review petition also, when counsel for the
review petitioner was queried as to whether he wants to continue
running the Chakhna shop, the counsel on instructions submits that he
will not run the Chakhna shop.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no sufficient ground to review,
recall or modify the order dated 17.08.2026 passed in WPC No.5035 of
2025.
11. Accordingly, the review petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash