1 2025:CGHC:23744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2811 of 2025 Kusum Lata Sahu W/o Om Prakash Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Chantideeh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 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. 7, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Venketesh Pandey, Advocate For State : Mrs. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Advocate Hon'ble Justice Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13.06.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the 2 Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: 10.1 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 the petitioner and quash/set-aside the impugned notice dated 04.06.2025(Annexure P-1). 10.2 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. 10.3 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 04.06.2025 is illegal, arbitary, against the law and natural justice and basic human rights, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Respondent authorities without considering the case of the petitioner that she has not encroached any government and also she is the owner of the land notice has been issued. She also contended that she has no objection about the progress of work for construction of road. She 3 further submitted that her only grievance is that if there is construction on any part of the suit property of the petitioner is made by the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, then compensation ought to have been given to the petitioner for the same after demarcating the said suit property in presence of the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is acquired by the Municipal Corporation then they will pay the extra Floor Area Ration (FAR) to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. 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 petitioner’s suit property, the respondents shall demarcate the land of the petitioner in her presence and thereafter pay compensation to the 4 petitioner for the said suit property as per provision of law. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. - sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza