1 2025:CGHC:46758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3418 of 2021  Smt. Parul Patel W/o Ashish Patel Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 508, Ward No 27, Near Princess Palace, Kailash Nagar, District Rajnandgaon, Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Ashish Patel, Aged About 43 Years, S/o Ashok Bhai Patel, R/o House No. 508, Ward No. 27, Near Princess Palace, Kailash Nagar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagriya Prashashan And Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Commissioner Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5. Shrimati Sharanjeet Kaur Bhatia W/o Shri Balvinder Singh Bhatia Aged About 48 Years Proprietor Princess Palace, R/o G.E. Road Rajnandgaon City, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3419 of 2021  Bharat Thakkar, S/o Madhoji Thakkar, Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 507, Ward No. 27, Near Princess Palace, Kailash Nagar, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Nagriya Prashashan And Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.16 16:27:42 +0530 2 2. The Collector, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Municipal Corporation , Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5. Shrimati Sharanjeet Kaur Bhatia W/o Shri Balvinder Singh Bhatia Aged About 48 Years Proprietor Princess Palace , R/o G.E. Road Rajnandgaon City , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer and 2 For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate along with Ms. Jyoti Chandravanshi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12. 09.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts; therefore, both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 quash/set-aside the notice dated 11/8/2021, in the interest of justice. 10.2 direct the respondents not to disturb the possession of petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners purchased flat Nos. 508 and 507 respectively, situated on the 4th floor at Sheet No. 48D, Plot No. 6/3, part 4 of Survey No. 296/31, Princess Palace Part B, having an area of 862.52 sq. feet (super built-up area 80.16 sq. 3 meters), from Smt. Saranjeet Kour Bhatia for a consideration of Rs. 9,73,000/- and Rs. 11,06,000/- respectively through registered sale deeds dated 14.02.2012 and 08.09.2011. It is further submitted that a show-cause notice was issued by respondent No. 4 on 18.06.2021 to the owner of the property, with an endorsement of the names of the petitioners, alleging that the builder raised construction of two additional flats in violation of the building permission. He contends that the builder Smt. Saranjeet Kour, submitted a reply to the notice, but, the petitioners could not file replies to the said notices. It is contended that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers and have been residing therein since 2010. He would further contend that the petitioners may be permitted to make representations before respondents No. 3 and 4 and the competent authority may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for compounding and regularization of the construction. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 would oppose. He would submit that the builder has constructed two additional flats without prior permission in violation of building permission and the construction of those flats cannot be regularized. He would further submit that if the petitioners make representations, the same would be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with the law. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer would support the contention made by Mr. Dubey. 7. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate, both the petitions are disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make suitable representations before respondents No. 3 and 4, and in turn, respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed 4 to consider the representations so made by the petitioners, in objective manner, strictly in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of 120 days. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), both the petitions are hereby disposed of, at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant