1 2025:CGHC:8497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(C) No. 987 of 2014 • Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited Supela Bhilai Police Station Supela, District Durg, C.G. Through The Chairman Santosh Golchha Age 50 Years, Son Of Late Shri K.C. Golchha, Akash Ganga Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary,Urban Administration and Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Municipal Council, Bhilai Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. The Building Construction Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State For Respondents No. 2 & 3 For Intervener : : : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2014 (Annexure Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 P/1), with all consequential orders and actions taken in pursuance to impugned order. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Corporation for treating the application for permission of construction submitted by the petitioner on 26.03.2011 as permitted under Section 295(3) of Act 1956. 10.4 To kindly grant any other relief which may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. The facts of the case are that a lease of the land situated at Block No. 4, Himalaya Commercial Complex, Bhilai, admeasuring 55 m x 30.88 m total 1698.40 sq.m. was granted to the petitioner on 20.11.1991 for a period of 30 years from 01.04.991 to 31.03.2021 by the then Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai-Durg. The petitioner after obtaining the required permission from the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai raised the construction of the Basement, Ground Floor, 1st Floor and 2nd Floor in the year 1994. On 20.06.2011, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to raise construction of the 3rd and 4th Floor along with the amount of premium fee as mentioned in the lease deed but no action was taken by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai on that application, therefore, the petitioner raised construction of the 3rd and 4th Floor of the complex. The show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 18.08.2011, 25.01.2014 and 24.03.2014, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai along with relevant documents like building permission, map etc. The petitioner has filed this petition against the notice dated 24.03.2014. 3 3. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that during the pendency of this petition, the period of lease has been extended vide order dated 23.08.2024 for a period of 30 years. He would further contend that the petitioner moved an application before the District Regularization Authority on 19.04.2017 according to the provisions of the CG. Anadhikrit Vikas Ka Niyamitikaran Adhiniyam, 2002 and that application was rejected by the District Regularization Authority vide order dated 26.12.2018. He would also submit that an appeal was preferred and the matter has been remitted back to the Authority to decide it afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties vide order dated 13.08.2019. He would further contend that when no decision was taken by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai on the application moved by the petitioner seeking permission to raise construction, the petitioner raised the construction. He would also contend that the provisions of Section 295(3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act 1956’) provide for deemed approval if the application is not decided within a period of 30 days. He would state that the authority concerned ought to have regularized the construction raised by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 would oppose. He would submit that no permission was granted by the Municipal Corporation in favour of the petitioner to raise the construction of the 3rd and 4th Floor of the building. He would further submit that certain deficiencies were detected on the application moved by the petitioner seeking permission under Section 295(3) of the Act, 1956 and the petitioner was duly communicated that his application was 4 liable to be rejected according to the provisions of Section 297 of the Act, 1956. He would further argue that on 25.01.2014, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out deficiencies in the application seeking permission to raise construction. He would contend that the petitioner failed to provide the required documents therefore, no decision was taken on his application. He would also argue that the petitioner was orally informed in the meeting dated 04.02.2014 with regard to deficiencies and thereafter, the notice Annexure P-1 was issued. He would state that the District Regularization Authority has taken a decision whereby the application moved by the petitioner for regularization of the illegal construction has been rejected and the matter has been remitted which is pending consideration before the authority concerned. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel appearing for the intervener would support the contention made by Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri. He would submit that the further construction raised by the petitioner is technically illegal. 6. Mr. Lav Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Admittedly, the lease has already been extended for a period of 30 years from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2051. The application for regularization moved under the provisions of Section 295(3) of the CG. Anadhikrit Vikas Ka Niyamitikaran Adhiniyam, 2002 was rejected and in appeal, the matter has been remitted back to the authority to decide it afresh. The 5 interim order passed in this writ petition dated 15.05.2014 is operating in favor of the petitioner therefore I am not inclined to keep this matter pending. 9. As the matter is pending consideration before the authority concerned, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned/Committee to decide the matter with regard to regularization of the construction raised by the petitioner preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 24.03.2014 till a decision is taken on the application of the petitioner. 11. The petitioner would be at liberty to revive his prayer, if the cause of action arises. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The parties shall be at liberty to participate in the proceedings before the authority concerned. The authority concerned/Committee is also directed to provide sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti