1 2025:CGHC:22729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2792 of 2025 1 - Vishnu Prasad Yadav S/o Late Shri Durgaprasad Yadav Aged About 56 Years R/o Chantidih, Near Rapta Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Collectorate, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Tilak Nagar, (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Vikas Bhawan, Raipur Road, Nehru Chowk, Below Apex Bank, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Vikas Bhawan Raipur Road, Nehru Chowk, Below Apex Bank, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Zone Commissioner Zone No. 7, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Building Officer Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No. 2 to 6 : : Shri Rishabh Bisen, PL Shri Anadi Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 09/06/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. Challenge in the present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the notice dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.6 by which the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment on the government land within 24 hours. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been served with the impugned notice on 04.06.2025 alleging that he is residing in the encroached government land and therefore he has been directed to remove the said encroachment and structure raised over it within a period fo 24 hours failing which necessary coercive measure will be taken against the petitioner to remove the said encroachment. He submits that prima facie, there is no reference or identity of the government land upon which the notice has been served. He submits that the respondent/authorities in the most highhanded and arbitrary manner had declared the petitioner as an encroacher without even appreciating the government records and the petitioner is the owner and title holder of the land bearing Khasra No. 372/3, 372/4, 378/5, 378/6 and 378/7 admeasuring 0.0120, 0.0120, 0.02000, 0.0090 and 0.0110 hectare totaling to 0.0640 hectares. The 3 petitioner had gained the title vide three registered sale deeds executed in the year 2009-2010 and thereafter got his name mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner has purchased the land from private persons. After getting mutation of the said land, it was recorded in the name of the petitioner and he applied for diversion and after initiation of relevant proceedings got the lands diverted. He submits that the petitioner having rightful title and ownership of the subject land and having the name updated in the revenue records, which are public and government documents. He submits that the petitioner has filed copy of all the relevant revenue documents relating to the said land along with the instant petition. He submit that the Municipal Corporation an 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 further submits that the only grievance of the petitioner is that if any 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 him for the same after demarcating the said property in his presence in accordance with law. 3. Counsel for the respondent submits that removal of any illegal encroachment would be only after proper ascertainment of the fact as to whether there is any illegal encroachment or not. He submits that if any part of the land of the petitioner is acquired by the Municipal Corporation, then it will pay extra Floor Area Ration (FAR) to him. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents annexed with the petition. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is 4 disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities that if any construction is made on the pettioner’s land, they shall demarcate the land of the petitioner in his presence and thereafter pay compensation to him for the said land as per provision of law. 6. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.10 11:52:19 +0530