1 - Sardar Harbans Singh S/o Late Sardar Mehar Singh Aged About 80 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12757-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 186 of 2025 1 - Sardar Harbans Singh S/o Late Sardar Mehar Singh Aged About 80 Years R/o Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sheela Ray W/o Late Sushil Kumar Ray Aged About 71 Years R/o Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dev Kumar Mehta S/o Late Bhupendra Nath Mehta Aged About 61 Years R/o Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector/ District Magistrate District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sanjay Singhai S/o Laxmichand Jain Aged About 57 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sandeep Singhal S/o Laxmichand Jain Aged About 53 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.22 10:42:30 +0530 2 For Appellants For Respondents/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy A.G. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Shri R Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Hon'ble Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 18/03/2025 Order on Board 1.
Decision
The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners against the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1462 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are tenants of the respondents No. 4 & 5 over the shop situated at Ward No.5, Gandhi Chowk, Amarkaktak Road, Pendra Road, District Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi since more than 15 years. On 15.02.2021, the respondents No. 4 & 5 moved an application before the respondent No.3 seeking permission to demolish the shop in dispute stating therein that the structure of the said shop is in dilapidated condition and it may collapse at any point of time, which may result into death of lives of the persons also. The petitioners filed the reply to the said application on 22.02.2021. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that on 02.03.2021 the respondents No. 4 & 5 started demolishing the shop, where the petitioners are tenant. 3. The petitioners have also pleaded that earlier they have filed an application under Section 23 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation 3 Control Act, 1961 before the Rent Controlling Authority, which was registered as case No. 4/A-90/1/2001-02 and has been dismissed on 26.12.2002. The civil revision filed against the order dated 26.12.2002 before the High Court vide Civil Revision No. 266/2003 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 03.01.2006. Since the respondents No. 4 and 5 could not succeeded in vacating the shop, they chosen the armed twisting method to get the shop vacated and filed the application before the respondent No.3 and started demolishing the shop of the petitioners without following the rules and procedure. Therefore, the respondent No.3 may be restrained from passing any order permitting the respondents No. 4 and 5 to demolish their shop with the following prayer in the writ petition: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to immediately stop the demolition process, which is going on the shop of petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 not to pass any order upon the application dated 15-02-2021 filed by the respondent No.4 & 5 till respondent No.4 & 5 initiate the proceeding under Rent Control Act. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners vide order 4 dated 10.02.2025, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would submit that although the petitioners are the tenants in the shop of the respondents No. 4 and 5 and they are running their business there since more than 15 years, the respondents No. 4 and 5 tried to vacate the premises by the armed twisting method. The condition of the building is quite good and not dilapidated. It is only when the respondents No. 4 and 5 could not get it vacated by legal means, they filed an application for permission to demolish the shop, where the petitioners are tenant, only to cover up their illegal act, they sought shelter of the order passed by the respondent No.3 that the construction is in dilapidated condition which required demolition. The respondents No. 4 and 5 ought to have moved their application before the Rent Controlling Authority to get it vacated and then only they may demolish the structure. Therefore, the writ appeal may be allowed and reliefs claimed in the writ petition may be granted to the writ appellants. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the respondents No. 4 and 5 appearing on advance copy, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellants and have submitted that considering the nature and condition of the structure that it may collapse at any point of time and there may be possibility of loss of human lives, they have moved an application before the competent authority for permission to demolish the structure of the dilapidated building, which is quite old and not safe for human dwelling or running a shop. The petitioners are tenants and are having no rights 5 over the property of the respondents No. 4 and 5 and therefore, they cannot claim as a matter of right and their writ petition has rightly been dismissed by learned Single Bench and no merits in their appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ appeal as well as writ petition. 8. From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the photographs of the building/shop in question would reveal that it is a quite old structure. As per the application made by the respondents No. 4 and 5 before the respondent No.3, the said construction is more than 80 years old and it is in dilapidated condition and can collapse at any time. They duly filed their application before the competent authority and the writ appellants have themselves pleaded in the writ petition that they have filed their reply before the respondent No.3 in the case. As per the reliefs claimed by the writ appellants in their writ petition, they seek a direction to the respondent No.3 not to pass any order on the application dated 15.02.2021 filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 till the initiation of the proceeding under the Rent Control Act and also claimed to stop the demolition process. From the documents filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the writ petition as Annexure R-4, it appears that the application for permission to demolish the construction, has already been decided by the respondent No. 3 on 04.03.2021 and permission to demolish the said construction was granted in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 and further on 01.10.2024 another notice was issued to the respondents No. 4 and 5 to demolish their shop within 15 days on their 6 own expenses and to inform the same to the Municipal Council, otherwise they would be responsible if any loss is caused. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, considering the condition of building and considering the nature of dispute between the parties, further considering that the proceeding before the respondent No.3 has already been concluded and the petitioners being the tenants, cannot claim the right over the property, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, in which we do not find any illegality or perversity to interfere with the same. 9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 10. Consequently, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved