1 2025:CGHC:25307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3040 of 2025 Ajit Masih S/o. Ratu Masih Aged About 60 Years R/o. Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Maharishi Valmiki Ward No. 32, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur Azad Chowk, Near Mahila Police Station, Chotapara, Janta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Zone Commissioner Zone No. 09, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate For State/respondents No.1 & 4 : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/06/2025 2 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioners have preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned demolition notice dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3 for demolition the house of the petitioner situated at Maharshi Valmiki Ward No.32, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, District Raipur, and the time assigned for vacating the residential property is 07 days from 13.06.2025 for the demolition would be carried out by the Municipal Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice for demolition served upon the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by the law, because the petitioner is residing along with her family since past more than 24 years and her residence has been also identified by the Municipal Corporation Raipur and he has also been granted permanent electricity connection, more so the petitioner is regularly paying the property taxes of the property in question, thus the demolition notice is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and his family does not have any other place to reside except the instant place where he and his family is residing since last 24 years. The petitioner is a regular tax payer to Municipal corporation Raipur and thus her property was identified by the Municiapal Corporation. The respondent authorities in order to vacate the place for benefiting some 3 resourceful persons are forcing the petitioner to vacate her land. He further submits that as per the case of respondent authorities are urging that the petitioner has raised the illegal construction at nazul government land however from past 24 years the Corporation had closed its eyes for the same and have itself permitted the petitioner to remain at the same place by collecting taxes and issuing identification mark of the property in question. Thus, the impugned notice must be quashed and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to live at the same place. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3/Municipal Corporation contended that at present the property of the petitioner is not required to the Corporation so they will not proceed anything in pursuance to notice dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) and whenever the property of the petitioner shall be acquired by the Municipal Corporation, then they will provide proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as they will proceed in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 7. 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 and thereafter pay compensation to them for the said suit property as per provision of law. 8. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant