1 - Sheikh Sabir S/o Sheikh Samshul Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Navin v. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.14 19:00:43 +0530 1 - Senani
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3809 of 2024 1 - Sheikh Sabir S/o Sheikh Samshul Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Navin School, Aditya Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.14 19:00:43 +0530 1 - Senani, First Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Additional Tahsildar, Durg Court Of Nayab Tahsildar Durg-02, Chhattisgarh 4 - Maal Jamadar, Durg Tahsil OfÏce District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Competent Authority Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar Bedakhali, Adhikari Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 WPC No. 3814 of 2024 1 - Anand Kumar Jain S/o Late Subhash Chand Jain Aged About 51 Years R/o 68/7, Nehru Nagar (West) Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Senani First Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Additional Tahsildar, Durg Court Of Nayab Tahsildar, Durg-02, Chhattigsarh 4 - Maal Jamadar, Durg Tahsil OfÏce District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Durg District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Competent Authority Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhikari Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Cause title taken from CIS) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Fauzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Shri Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 13.01.2025 3 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against action of respondents authorities of sealing and locking of the shops of petitioner without following due process of law and without initiating any proceedings of eviction of petitioner from the premises which was rented to petitioner through rent agreement executed between parties. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of these writ petitions are that petitioners have been given shops on rent situated at Katulboard near petrol pump which is under the ownership of respondent No. 1. Rent agreement was also executed dated 01.09.2016 (in W.P.C. No. 3809 of 2024), dated 16.06.2017 (in W.P.C. No. 3814 of 2024) between parties. Respondent No. 1 issued letter to the Collector for initiating proceedings against petitioners under Chhattisgarh Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1974"). Petitioners were served with a show cause notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1974 on 05.02.2021. Petitioners submitted reply mentioning that civil suit is filed by them which is pending before 7th Civil Jugde, Class II, Durg. Civil suit came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2023. After receipt of reply, competent authority, under the Act of 1974, closed the proceedings vide its order dated 12.01.2024, recording that against subject matter of proceedings, civil suit is pending consideration. First appeal filed by petitioners also came to be dismissed. Nayab Tahsildar, Durg issued eviction warrant on 01.03.2024 mentioning that Civil Court has passed an order on 10.10.2023 of evicting petitioners / non-applicants therein and in 4 compliance of order passed by 2nd Additional District Judge dated 28.02.2024, after evicting non-applicants therein / petitioners herein, compliance report be submitted. Objection raised by petitioners was dismissed on 05.03.2024 by Additional Tahsildar. Panchnama was prepared and thereafter, shops given to petitioners were sealed and in the panchanma, it is recorded that possession has been handed over to respondent No. 1. It is against this action, these writ petitions are filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that proceedings initiated on the letter of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 & 4 is absolutely without jurisdiction and without any authority of law. She contended that shops, which was given to petitioners on rent, was owned by respondent No. 1 which is a Government Agency. If for any reason, petitioners were possessing shop unauthorizedly, after determining of rent agreement, petitioners ought to have been evicted only following due process of law. Respondent No. 1 initially taken recourse of the Act of 1974, accordingly, proceedings were initiated by Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), the competent authority, however, on 12.01.2024, competent authority recorded that on similar subject case is pending before Civil Court, Durg and therefore, it will not be appropriate to continue with the proceedings and case was filed. The civil suit filed by petitioners though dismissed as also the appeal, however, there is no judgment or decree or any other order, in favour of respondent No. 1 and against petitioners for their eviction. Dismissal of civil suit or appeal filed by petitioners will not automatically give right to respondent No. 1 to 5 get evicted the shops given on rent to petitioners without following due process of law and therefore, action on the part of respondents in taking forceful possession and sealing shop is per se illegal and arbitrary, hence, respondents be directed to restore possession of shops given on rent to petitioners vide rent agreement dated 01.09.2016 & 16.06.2017 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petition i.e. WPC No. 1729/2024 & WPC No. 1854/2024, filed by the similarly situated person have been allowed by this Hon’ble Court against which an appeal bearing Writ Appeal No. 812/2024 was preferred by the State which has also been rejected by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners and would submits that suit filed for declaration and injunction by petitioners came to be dismissed. Appeal filed also came to be dismissed. It is submitted that claim of petitioners is that respondent No. 1 has handed over possession of shop, subject matter of writ petition, on lease, however, respondent No. 1 is not having any authority to give shop owned by State Government on rent. Document Annexure-P/1 is void-ab-initio. It is submitted that initially, respondent No. 1 issued notice on 29.09.2018, due to pendency of civil suit filed by petitioners, proceedings under notice Annexure - R/1 dated 29.09.2018 remain suspended. After dismissal of suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2023 application was submitted before the Tahsildar by respondent No. 1 to get shops vacated as civil suit has been dismissed. Accordingly, Tahsildar took possession of shops and 6 handed over to respondent No. 1 and panchnama was prepared. It is submitted that commodities / articles / goods which was kept in the shops has not been disturbed. Apart from one lock of petitioners, another lock of respondent has also been put by respondent no. 1. There is no error or illegality or arbitrariness on the action of respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and also perused documents annexed along with these writ petitions. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioners were put in possession by respondent No. 1 by executing rent agreement of respective shops. The petitioner has also placed rent agreement dated 01/09/2016 (Annexure-P/1). Though respondent / State has made an attempt to say that respondent No. 1 is not having any authority to give shop of State Government on rent, nonetheless, the fact is not in dispute that respondent No. 1, after entering into agreement, put petitioners in possession of shops subject matter of writ petitions. Petitioners are in permissive possession. Respondent No. 1 is one of the authority under the State Government and therefore, if for any reason, the petitioners / tenants are required to be evicted from tenanted premises, it is for the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Documents placed along with these writ petitions would show that initially, respondent No. 1 has initiated proceedings under the Act of 1974 of eviction from public premises. Based on the application submitted by respondent No. 1, competent authority registered case under the Act of 1974, issued notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 to non-applicants therein / 7 petitioners herein on 05.02.2021. In the proceedings dated 22.03.2021, it is recorded that Presiding OfÏcer was transferred and thereafter, order-sheet was recorded only on 12.01.2024. On the said date, proceedings was closed recording that, on same subject matter civil suit filed is pending consideration. From the order-sheet, which is available in writ petitions would show that though proceedings under the Act of 1974 was initiated for eviction of petitioners from shop / public premises, however, it was not concluded but closed taking note of pendency of civil suit. Civil suit, which was filed by petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction, in which, respondent No. 1 was defendant. Civil suit came to be dismissed. Appeal filed also came to be dismissed but, dismissal of civil suit filed by petitioners will not give any right to respondent No. 1 to initiate proceedings of eviction only on the basis of dismissal of civil suit when petitioners were in permissive possession as tenant based on rent agreement executed by respondent No. 1. 7. Document which is filed by respondent State would show that respondent No. 1, after dismissal of civil suit, wrote letter to Tahsildar to get shops vacated as civil suit filed by petitioners was dismissed and based on the said letter, the Tahsildar registered revenue case, initiated proceedings and sealed shops given on rent to petitioners and handed over the same to respondent No. 1, which, in the opinion of this court, is per se without authority of law. It appears that the Tahsildar can executed any order or judgment or decree of any competent authority or Court of Law. No such orders 8 of eviction against petitioners are passed by competent authority or any judgment and decree by Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of respondent No. 1. The action on the part of respondents of forcefully sealing shops rented to petitioners is per se arbitrary, illegal and therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. For the foregoing discussions, writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to unseal the shop and hand over possession of respective shops to petitioners, expeditiously preferably within a period of three days from the date of receipt of this order. However, respondent No. 1 or the State will be at liberty to take recourse to law for getting evicted petitioners from rented shops as available under law. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib