Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:24521
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2979 of 2025 1 - Dr. Manish Kumar Gupta S/o Dr. Harishankar Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o In Front Of Jagannath Mandir, Sadar Bazar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Joint Director Town And Country Planning, Raipur, C.G. 4 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 5 - Zone Commissioner Zone No. 6, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board 16/06/2025 The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
2 Constitution of India against the impugned notice dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove his private property from the Nazul land for which he has been paying the property tax and commercial tax to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is rightful owner of the property in question and he had purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 09.05.1985. He submits that after obtaining due permission from the respondents, the petitioner had got the construction of 1 shop and three rooms on part of his property and some portion is left vacant for personal use. He submits that the petitioner had purchased the diverted plot by a duly registered sale deed and got it mutated and after obtaining permission from the respondent he had constructed the shop and rooms which is also endorsed in the revenue records. He submits that after obtaining due approval of the map, he had constructed over it and the respondents are trying to demolish the shop.
3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is rightful owner and possession holder of the shop for which he has been paying property tax and commercial tax to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur (henceforth “suit property”) but the respondent are trying to demolish the aforesaid property of the petitioner. He submits 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 he has no objection to the progress of work for construction of road. He would further
3 submit that the only grievance is that if there is construction on any part of the suit property of the petitioner made by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur then compensation ought to be given to the petitioner for the same after demarcating the said suit property in presence of the petitioner in accordance with law.
4.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the removal of any illegal encroachment would be done only after proper ascertainment of the fact as to whether there is any illegal encroachment or not. He submit that if any part of the land of the petitioner is acquired by the Municipal Corporation then they will pay extra Floor Area Ration (FAR) to the petitioner.
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 petitioner’s suit property, the respondents shall demarcate the land of the petitioner in his presence. Til then no coercive steps shall be taken against the said property of the petitioner. If the land of the petitioner is acquired by the Municipal Corporation, then the concerned authorities shall pay compensation to the petitioner for the said property as per provision of law.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge
SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.18 11:17:17 +0530