Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25732 (CHH)

RAUNAK SALUJA v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/2768/2025 · 2025-06-04

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:22546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2768 of 2025 1 - Raunak Saluja S/o Shri Surjeet Singh Saluja Aged About 32 Years R/o Gali No. 2, Telipara, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Reena Saluja D/o Shri Surjeet Singh Saluja Aged About 42 Years R/o Gali No. 2, Telipara, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vanshika Saluja D/o Shri Manish Saluja Aged About 19 Years R/o Gali No. 2, Telipara, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Urban And Administration Of Local Bodies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Municipal Corporation Through The Commissioner Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bhawan Adhikari Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 05/06/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. The petitioners have preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04/02-06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 4 by which they have been directed to remove their three-story building and shop for which they have been paying property tax and commercial tax to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are rightful owner and possession holder of the three-story building and shop for which they have been paying property tax and commercial tax to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (henceforth, “suit property”) but the respondent authority wants to widening the road after demolishing the aforesaid property of the petitioners. He submits that notice of demolition of the suit property is served upon the petitioner No. 1 only, however, petitioners No. 2 & 3 have challenged the same by filing instant writ petition alongwith petitioner No. 1. The petitioners have filed copy of all the relevant revenue documents relating to the suit property alongwith the instant petition. He would further submit that the Municipal Corporation can acquire the land of any person under the doctrine of “eminent domain” but by compensating the owner of the land by following due procedure of law and they have no objection about the progress of work for construction of road. He would further submit that only grievance of the petitioners is that if there is construction on any part of the suit property of the petitioners is made by the Municipal corporation, 3 Bilaspur, then compensation ought to have been given to them for the same after demarcating the said suit property in their presence in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and submits that removal of any illegal encroachment would be only after proper ascertainment of the fact whether there is in fact any illegal encroachment or not. He further submits that if any part of the land of the petitioners is acquired by the Municipal Corporation then they will pay extra Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to them. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities that if any construction is made on the petitioners’ suit property, the respondents shall demarcate the land of the petitioners in their presence and thereafter pay compensation to them for the said suit property as per provision of law. 6. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. In view of above, I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application for urgent hearing and I.A. No. 03/2025, which is an application for hearing during summer vacation, stand disposed of. S Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.06 16:13:52 +0530