1 2025:CGHC:26261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3105 of 2025 Shankar Hirwani S/o Late Gullumal Hirwani Aged About 56 Years R/o Chingrajpara, Bilaspur, Tahsil - Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary Urban Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Building Officer Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL. For the Municipal Corporation : Mr. SS Baghel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the oral order dated 17.06.2025 & notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent Nos.3 & 4 for demolition of house of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record as the respondents-authorities have failed to consider the fact that father of the petitioner has purchased the disputed land/property by a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1994 in the name of his mother. The petitioner has filed the copy of sale deed dated 16.05.1994 and receipt/payment of tax relating to the disputed property/house alongwith the instant petition. The respondents-authorities have committed gross irregularity by holding that construction over the disputed land is illegal. The respondents-authorities have not complied with the mandatory provisions/rules of the the Land Acquisition Act. Without demarcation and identification of the land/property, respondents-authorities cannot reach to the decision of demolition of the disputed property/house of the petitioner. Learned Counsel further 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 about the progress of work for construction of road. He would further submit that his only grievances is that if there is construction on any part of the suit property of the petitioner is made by the Municipal corporation, 3 Bilaspur, then compensation ought to have been 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 -Municipal Corporation opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that removal of any illegal encroachment would be only after proper ascertainment of the fact whether there is any illegal encroachment or not. He further submits that if any part of the land of the petitioner is acquired by the Municipal Corporation then they will pay extra Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the writ petition, submissions of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-authorities that if any construction is made on the petitioner's suit property/land, the respondents shall demarcate the land of the petitioner in his presence and, thereafter, pay compensation to the petitioner for the said suit property/land as per provision of law. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-