1 2025:CGHC:21975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2578 of 2025 • Daulat Ram Choudhari S/o Late Nehchal Das Choudhari Aged About 54 Years R/o Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Building Officer Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Zone Commissioner Zone No. 5, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.3 to 5 : Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, GA PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.05.13 16:45:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 13/05/2025 1. This Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction and call the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner and quash/set-aside the impugned notice dated 14-04-2025. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not to disturb peaceful possession of petitioner over the shop and allow him to do his business over the said shop. 3. That, 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.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, in violation of the building permission, constructed first floor and second floor, though sanctioned was granted by respondent No.3 only for construction of the building on the ground floor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority has also accepted the property tax in respect of the ground floor and the other two floors constructed over the subject building and also of the excess construction. He further submits that the petitioner is also ready 3 to deposit the composition fees. He would further submit that this Petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation accordingly. Lastly, he submits that till such period, a limited protection may be granted to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 and counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 strongly oppose the aforesaid submission and would submit that recently in the matter of Kaniz Ahmed vs. Sabuddin & Ors. passed in Special Leave to Appeal(C) Nos.12199-12200/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in strong terms observed that when any person in violation of the building permission constructs any building, the Court must adopt a strict approach while dealing with the cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority and the relevant para 7 reads thus:- “7.Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put 4 otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.” 5. Heard the submissions put forth by counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the Petition carefully. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kaniz Ahmed (supra), wherein, it has been categorically observed that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. 7. Admittedly, in the present matter the said norms has been violated. Hence, this Court does not find any merit or substance in this Petition. 8. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Accordingly, all the pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka