1 2025:CGHC:23030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2840 of 2025 1 - Salik Ram Gupta S/o. Ramu Prasad Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o. Pachrighat, Juna Bilaspur, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home/transport Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Cum District Magistrate Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Bhawan Adhikari Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalit Bhushan Paswan, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent No. : : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/06/2025 2 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioners have preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the notice dated 16.04.2025 and 29.05.2025 issued by the Respondent no. 5, threatening demolition without conducting any lawful demarcation or initiating any acquisition proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the lawful owner and possessor of the land bearing Khasra No. 437, area 0.54 acres, situated at Village Chantidih, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), purchased by registered sale deed dated 29.10.1990 and no part of this land has ever been acquired under any provision of law. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 petitioners’ suit property, the respondents shall demarcate the land of the petitioners in their presence and thereafter pay compensation to them for the said 3 suit property as per provision of law. 7. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima