1 / 3 2025:CGHC:27620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3234 of 2025 Rajkumar Mishra @ R.K. Mishra S/o Late S.L. Mishra Aged About 79 Years R/o Gali No. 2, Telipara, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of C.G. Through The Principal Secretary, Urban And Administration Of Local Bodies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Municipal Corporation Through The Commissioner Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Zone Commissioner Zone No. 5, In Front of City Kotwali Thana, Behind Govt. Hospital, Bilaspur, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. A.S. Kachchwaha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.06.26 14:11:45 +0530 2 / 3 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner has been directed to remove his house for which he has been paying property tax and commercial tax to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is rightful owner and possession holder of the house for which he has been paying property tax and commercial tax to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (henceforth, “suit property”) but the respondent authority wants to widen the road after demolishing the aforesaid property of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed copy of sale deeds dated 31/10/1990, 31/10/1990, 24/021990, 25/10/2002, relating to the suit property alongwith the instant petition. He would further submit 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, 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 opposes the submission and 3 / 3 submits that removal of any illegal encroachment would be only after proper ascertainment of the fact whether there is in fact 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. 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 the petitioner for the said suit property as per provision of law. 7. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu