1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1844 of 2025 Order Reserved on 8.5.2025 Order Passed on 23.7.2025 1 - Nazir Khan S/o Yunus Ali Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Baijnathpara, Maulana Abdul Rauf Ward No. 45, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vivek Ghosh S/o Narendra Ghosh Aged About 40 Years Proprietor Anita Sweets, Address Baijnathpara, Muaulana Abdul Rauf Ward No. 45, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, White House, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Arun Dhruw Zone Commissioner, Zone - 4, Municipal Corporation Raipur, At Near Subhash Stadium, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani and Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani, Advocates For State/Respondent No.1 : Shri Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.23 19:16:34 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wile challenging impugned notice dated 4.4.2025 issued by the Zone Commissioner, Zone No.4, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. By the said notice, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has directed petitioner No.2 to vacate the shop within 3 days and the report regarding the same be produced before the Zone Commissioner, otherwise necessary action will be taken in respect of said shop under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) and the responsibility of the same would be upon petitioner No.2. The petitioners by way of this petition have sought the following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the matter in hand. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders to quash/set aside the order dt. 04.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 03. 3 10.3 the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order/direct the respondent no. 03 to release the sealed shops of the petitioners. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent no. 03 to consider and allow the application for regularization of the constructions in the said shops. 10.5 Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The case of the petitioners, as projected by them, is that petitioner No.1 is owner of an old house bearing House No.110 and 110/1 property UID No.RPR741B00009 Khasra No.707 area 796 Sq.Ft. Petitioner No.1 has purchased the same through registered sale deed and got his name mutated in the municipal records which is reflected in the mutation paper as well as tax assessment notice. After purchase of the aforesaid house, petitioner No.1 constructed 2 shops in the ground floor and a residential flat in the first floor while duly getting lay out sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. After construction of the shops, an agreement was executed between petitioner No.1 to sell his shop and accordingly petitioner No.2 has purchased the shop and opened a shop, namely, Anita Sweets. The respondent/Municipal Corporation has sealed both the shops upon which petitioner No.1 has 4 submitted an application before respondent No.3, the Zone Commissioner to break the seal upon which respondent No.3 while imposing a fine of Rs.5,000 has broken the seal. However, again in the month of September, 2012 to 2024, the shops were sealed by respondent No.3. Petitioner No.1 once again filed an application for breaking of the seal and opening the shop upon which respondent No.3 imposed fine of Rs.3,000 and thereafter the shop was reopened. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 has moved an application for regularisation in respect of additional construction in the said shop upon which a letter has been issued by respondent No.3 to submit the relevant documents. Petitioner No.1 in reply has stated that he is willing to get the matter regularised by compromising the same and if additional construction has been raised it may be regularised. He is ready to pay the penalty which would be imposed upon him. However, on 5.12.2024, when again the shop was sealed, the petitioner filed an application stating that so far as construction is concerned, he is ready for regularisation of the construction and for which he is ready to pay the penalty imposed upon him. He is taking treatment at Odisha, as such he is having difficulties. However, it has not been given any consideration and heed and without any further action, impugned notice has been issued which is per se illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though the petitioners have got the map sanctioned and have 5 constructed the shop as per the sanctioned map and lay out, even if the respondents authorities have found that the petitioners have made extra construction without permission then also the petitioners are ready for regularisation of the additional construction and they are further ready to pay the penalty imposed upon them. At present, petitioner No.1 is facing ailment in respect of paralytic attack and he is not having any source of income except from the income of those shops, as such the same may be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Municipal Corporation has filed its return in which they have categorically submitted that when it was found that petitioner No.1 has illegally constructed the shops in question, notice has been issued on 2.2.2024 under Section 293(i) and Section 302 of the Act of 1956 stating that the shops have been constructed on sanctioned map. Thereafter, on 5.3.2024, another notice under Section 307(2)(a) of the Act of 1956 has been issued to petitioner No.1 while directing him to file his appropriate reply till 7.3.2024. Thereafter, again on 20.3.2024, a notice under Section 307(3) of the Act of 1956 has been issued, however, petitioner No.1 failed to reply any of the notices. These notices have not been stated by the petitioners in the writ petition and it has been suppressed by the petitioners. The suppression itself disentitles the petitioners to seek any relief as held in the the matter of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481. The 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if any construction has been raised unauthorisedly against the sanctioned plan, the same shall be removed as it will affect the rights and enjoyments of the property by the persons residing in the said residential area. On two occasions, on the request of petitioner No.1, the shops were opened only to remove the articles therein, however, petitioner No.1 has not removed the articles from the shops. Filing of application for regularisation itself goes to suggest that illegal construction has been raised by petitioner No.1 against the sanctioned building and lay out plans. As such, the petitioners are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought. Notice has rightly been issued for vacating the shops so that the illegal construction may be removed. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has also annexed various documents to show the aforesaid facts. When on an earlier occasion, construction was being raised, respondents No.2 and 3 have submitted relevant documents to show that it was petitioner No.1 who is at fault. He has been sent notices, however, he has not given due care to the said notices. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the petition as well as the documents appended with it, it appears that petitioner No.1 has raises some illegal construction, as such he was directed to get it 7 removed, which the petitioners have challenged. There is alternative remedy available under the law to petitioner No.1 to approach before the Municipal Corporation under Section 307(3) and Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956, which petitioner No.1 has not availed. From perusal of the documents as filed, it seems that petitioner No.1 has accepted this fact that he has raised some construction against the lay out and map, however, petitioner No.1 is ready for regularisation and for that he is ready to deposit the penalty imposed by the Municipal Corporation. From perusal of the rejoinder as submitted by the petitioners it seems that in the said vicinity several other shops and complexes have been constructed, but, notices have been issued only to petitioner No.1. Earlier, he has deposited sums of Rs.5,000 and Rs.3,000 for excess construction raised by him when the shops were sealed. Though the illegal construction cannot be supported and the same cannot be allowed, however, since there is provision of regularisation and accordingly the petitioner No.1 has filed an application for regularisation, he is further ready and willing to pay penalty to be imposed while regularising the construction, as such this Court is of the view that under the provisions of the regularisation of the excess construction, the respondents authorities may look into the matter from that angle and consider the same in accordance with law. The respondents authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders regarding regularisation of the excess construction within a period of 60 days from the date 8 of production of a copy of this order while giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and till then the shops in question may not be sealed or disturbed. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh