-1- 2025:CGHC:25922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 391 of 2020 1 - Pallavi Chowdhary D/o Shri Ramudgar Choudhary Aged About 42 Years W/o Shri Sujit Kumar, R/o 303 Royal Homes, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nawa Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Paryawas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The General Manager (Administration), Nawa Raipur Development Authority, Paryawas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Manager (Land) Nawa Raipur Development Authority Paryawas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Building Officer, Nawa Raipur Development Authority Paryawas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ….Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Lav Sharma, PL For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board -2- 19.06.2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders setting aside/quashing the impugned communication/memo 24.07.2019 (Annexure P/1 collectively) issued by the respondent State/ Authorities without any lawful authority. 10.2 Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioners, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.5/Building Officer has issued a notice against the petitioner on 24.07.2019, whereby the petitioner has been granted three days to submit relevant documents with regard to the building permission, otherwise, the illegal construction would be removed pertaining to the land bearing survey No.295/1, 295/2, ad-measuring 0.75 hectare, situated at Village-Parsada, Patwari Halka No.68/21 Tehsil Arang, District- Raipur. 3) He would further submit that according to Section 37 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, the Act, 1973), the Director is the authorized person to issue a notice for the removal of unauthorized development. The Director may issue a notice to the owner within such a period being not less than one month and not exceeding three months for action against unauthorized construction, therefore, the impugned notice issued by the Building Officer is in contravention of Section 37 of the Act, 1973. 4) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that respondent No.5/Building Officer is competent to issue a notice under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 (for short, the Rules, 1984), and Rule 8(2)(iii) empowers respondent No.5 to issue the notice/order to remove the illegal or unsafe construction. -3- 5) Mr. Shrivastava would submit that the petitioner may make a representation along with relevant documents before the Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority and the same would be decided in accordance with the law. 6) Section 37 of the Act, 1973 reads as under:- “37. Power to require removal of unauthorised development. - (1) Where any development has been carried out as indicated in Section 36 the Director may, within five years of such development, serve on the owner a notice requiring him, within such period being not less than one month and not exceeding three months as may be specified therein from the date of the service of the notice,- (a) in cases specified in clause (a) or (c) of Section 36 to restore the land to its condition existing before the said development took place; (b) in cases specified in clause (b) or (d) of Section 36 to secure compliance with the conditions or with the permission as modified : Provided that where the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land, notice shall be served on the occupier also.” 7) Rule 8 of the Rules, 1984 reads as under:- “8.Power and duties of the Building Officer.- (1) The Building Officer shall enforce the provisions of these rules and all lawful orders or instructions issued pursuant thereto and shall act any question related to the mode of manner or construction, addition, alteration, repair, removal or demolition. (2) The Building Officer - (i) shall receive all applications for permission under rule 17 and may issue permission; (ii) shall examine the premises for which permissions have been issued and ensure compliance with these rules; (iii) may as and when necessary issue all necessary notices or orders to (a) remove illegal or unsafe construction, (b) require necessary safeguards during development or construction, (c) require adequate exit facilities in existing buildings and (d) ensure compliance with all the requirements of safety, health and general welfare of the public as contained in these -4- rule.” 8) From a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, 1973, it is apparent that the Director is competent to take action for the removal of unauthorized development after providing the opportunity of hearing to the concerned owner, however, under the Rules, 1984, the Building Officer is an authorized person to issue necessary notices or orders for removal of illegal and unsafe construction. 9) Taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties, at this juncture, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation along with all the relevant documents before the respondent/Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority, and in turn, the authority shall consider the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and till the decision on the representation of the petitioner is taken, no action shall be taken pursuant to the notice dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure P/1). SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha