-1- 2025:CGHC:9847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2604 of 2019 Subhash Jaiswal, S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 55 Years, Proprietor Indane Gas Godown, Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District and Tehsil- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development. 2- The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Naya Raipur, Post Office and Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3- Building Officer, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4- Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5- Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedang Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Rajnish Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.02.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner land bearing Khasra No. 579/1 and 579/3 which is currently 579/19 and 579/16, respectively. ii.That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the notice dated 14.06.2019 received on 10.07.2019 (ANNEXURE P/1) which has been issued to the petitioner for demolition of boundary wall constructed upon the petitioner's land. iii. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a notice under the provisions of Section(s) 322/323 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was issued by respondent No.3 against the petitioner to remove the encroachment within 24 hours. He would further submit that the respondent No.3 has not described survey number and the location of the land, where the petitioner has encroached over. The petitioner may be permitted to file a detailed reply / representation before the respondent No.3 and in turn, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider it and pass an appropriate order in objective manner within a stipulated time. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4 would oppose the submission made by Mr. Sinha and submit that the respondent No.3 has described the land where the petitioner has encroached over. He would contend that the encroached land is situated at Ward No.57, Kapil Nagar, behind Mukti Dham, Sarkanda, Bilaspur; thus, he -3- would contend that the submission made by Mr. Sinha is incorrect. He would also contend that if petitioner files reply & representation to the notice dated 14.06.2019, the authorities concerned will consider it and take appropriate decision. 4) Mr. Vedang Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Himanshu Sinha & Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, this petition at this juncture is disposed of and the petitioner is permitted to file reply / representation within a period of 15 days before the respondent authorities, and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to take appropriate decision on such representation/reply within a further period of 60 days. 7) As interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 30.07.2019, same shall remain in force for a period of 75 days. 8) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is hereby disposed of. 9) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM