1 2025:CGHC:15917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1708 of 2025 1 - Ashish Agrawal S/o Niranjanlal Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 5 Sector - I Geetanjali Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Town And Country Planning Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Vishal Meghani S/o Jairam Meghani Aged About 40 Years R/o Plot No. 06, Sector - 1 Geetanjali Nagar Ward No. 33 Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Neeraj Meghani S/o Jairam Meghani Aged About 42 Years R/o Plot No. 6, Sector - 1 Geetanjali Nagar Ward No. 33 Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/04/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may allow the writ petition and to issue appropriate writ and to direct res. no.1 & 2 to take appropriate action against res. no.3 & 4 for illegal construction taking place and further direct to refrain the respondents from doing the illegal construction taking place over plot no. 6, Sector no-1, Scheme No. 2. At 2 Geetanjali nagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent no. 2 initiate proceedings under Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 against res.no.3 & 4 for removing the illegal construction already done over plot no. 6, Sector no-1, Scheme No. 2. At Geetanjali nagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) in the interest of Justice. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondents No. 3 and 4 are constructing on plot no. 6 at Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. Before commencing construction, respondents No. 2 and 3 obtained permission from respondents No. 1 and 2. The authorities granted permission for construction on the said land, sanctioning a layout plan and permission under the Bhoomi Vikas Niyam, 1984. House of the petitioner is adjacent to the construction site, causing him trouble. Upon returning from out of station, the petitioner discovered that respondents No. 3 and 4 were constructing without leaving open spaces, hindering natural light and air. The petitioner received an online plan and map, which showed construction with open spaces on all sides. However, respondents No. 3 and 4 constructed the building without leaving open spaces. The petitioner informed the authorities about the illegal construction, but no action was taken. Despite the written complaint to respondent No. 2, requesting action against respondents No. 3 and 4 and cessation of illegal construction, the authorities failed to take action. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that inaction of respondent No. 2 in not stopping the illegal construction is arbitrary. The sanctioned map and permission granted by respondent No. 2 specify that construction must be limited to the proposed area, with open spaces left on all four sides. However, respondents No. 3 and 4 are constructing on the entire plot without leaving any open space, violating the permission and site plan. According to Rule 55 and 56 of the C.G. Bhoomi Vikas Niyam, 1984, leaving open space is mandatory before constructing on residential plots. Respondents No. 3 and 4 are violating this rule. Despite the complaint dated 27.03.2025 made by the petitioner before respondent No. 2, the authorities have taken no action against respondents No. 3 and 4, nor have they stopped the illegal construction. Section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, states that constructions contrary to the rules are illegal. The authorities may issue notices and direct removal of the construction work. However, in this case, the authorities have not stopped the construction nor issued any directions, demonstrating a callous approach. It is established that illegal constructions cannot be regularized. The only possible action is to remove the illegal construction, but the authorities are allowing it to continue by not taking action. It is further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, that petitioner is seeking a limited prayer that respondent – authorities may be directed to consider his complaint dated 27.03.2025 and inspect the construction which is being illegally raised by respondents No. 3 and 4. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that he has no objection to the limited prayer sought by petitioner with respect to 4 direction to respondent – authority to decide the complaint made by petitioner on 27.03.2025. He further contended that the complaint will be addressed, and if the construction is found to be in violation of the sanctioned map and other applicable rules and regulations, it will be dealt with in accordance with the law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and submission of learned counsel for petitioner that complaint filed before respondent No. 2 / Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur on 27.03.2025 is pending till date, respondent No. 2 / Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur is directed to inspect the subject place within a period of 07 days and if, any violation is found, it be dealt with in accordance with law within a further period of 14 days. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur is indeed expected to address the matter of illegal construction seriously and urgently. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 8. Certified Copy today. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI