1 2025:CGHC:6641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3969 of 2024 1 - Sourabh Gupta S/o Shri Ram Sahodar Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir Ward No. 14, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Mukesh Khandelwal S/o Shri Ashok Khandelwal Aged About 38 Years R/o Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir Ward No. 14, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Town And Country Planning, Rda Building, Shastri Chowk Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Zone Commissioner Zone-2, Municipal Corporation, Near Shahid Smarak School, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.07 16:20:54 +0530 2 6 - Vishal Khandelwal S/o Omprakash Khandelwal R/o Satkar Hotel Gali, Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir Ward No. 14, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Juhi Khandelwal W/o Vishal Khandelwal R/o Satkar Hotel Gali, Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir Ward No. 14, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondents No. 3 & 5 :Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 6 & 7 :Shri Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. The petitioner is owner of house situated at Satkar Gali, Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir Ward No. 14, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and the petitioners are residing there since a long period with their family. The petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent State Authority to take action and demolish the illegal construction raised by the respondent no. 6 & 7. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are residing at Satkar Gali Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir Ward No. 14, Raipur since a long period, which is a residential. Respondent no. 6 & 7 have also purchased land few year back and permission was granted by the Municipal Corporation to respondent no. 6 & 7 to construct residential 3 accommodation only, but the respondent no. 6 & 7, in violation of the permission granted to them, they are constructing a commercial complex/hotel. The petitioner and the resident of area requested the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Zone Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to take necessary action to stop the construction raised by the respondent no. 6 & 7or to remove the construction of commercial building in the residential area, but in spite of the said request no action has been taken against the respondent no. 6 & 7. The petitioners annexed application dated 23.09.2022 and 21.10.2022 vide (Annexure P/2 & P/3). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that the respondent no. 5 have issued a notice to respondent no. 6 & 7 for removal of the illegal construction vide notice dated 20.03.2023, but thereafter no action has been taken by the Municipal Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that the respondent no. i.e. Joint Director, Town and Country Planning has instructed respondent no. 3, the Commissioner Municipal Corporation vide communication dated 19.06.2024 to take necessary action pursuance to the complaint made by the complainant. They further submit that the private respondent no. 6 & 7 moved application for regularization of construction as commercial which was rejected by the competent authority on 25.07.2024, the same is annexed as (Annexure R/1). 4. Learned State counsel also submits that the respondent no. 6 & 7 moved application for regularization of their illegal construction for residential purpose before the respondent no. 3, which has been 4 registered vide file no. 131 dated 23.05.2023 and the application would be placed before the committee constituted for the purpose of deciding the such case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 & 5 submits that the Municipal Corporation has already issued notice under Section 293 (1) and (2) and Section 302 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and notice under Section 307(2A) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 on 11.11.2021 and further notice under Section 307(3) was issued on 07.02.2022 to the respondent no. 6 & 7 and the final notice was issued on 20.03.2023. However, the learned counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the application for regularization of their illegal construction has been rejected by the competent authority vide 25.04.2024 and thereafter notices were issued by the Corporation to the respondent no. 6 & 7 to stop the construction, otherwise action would be taken. On the said notice the respondent no. 6 & 7 have given reply to the said notice issued by the answering respondent and contended that they will use the building only for residential purpose and they will not use it for commercial purpose. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 & 7 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is dispute between the two private party and the petitioners, the petitioners ought to have file a civil suit. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 & 7 submit that the dismissal of application for regularization as contended by the respondent corporation are concerned, against the said appeal has 5 been filed before the competent authority and the same is still pending. 7. I have heard all the counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by the parties. 8. From perusal of the pleading and contention of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6 & 7, it is very clear that the building which has been constructed by the petitioner is not in accordance with the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation and for which the petitioner had moved application for regularizing the said excess construction, however the said application has already been rejected by the concerned authority vide order dated 25.07.2024. After the said rejection, the corporation has issued notice to the private respondent no. 6 & 7 to stop construction, however they have replied to the notice stating that they will use the building only for residential purpose and they will not use it for commercial purpose. Be that as it may once the corporation found that some illegal construction has been made and notices were issued by the corporation to said illegal construction then the action initiated by the corporation has to reach to a logical end. The corporation has to take steps once the corporation found that some illegal or excess construction has been made in a residential area. Hence, Commissioner/respondent no. 3 is directed to take appropriate steps against the respondent no. 6 & 7 by examining the allegation made by the petitioners about the illegal construction and the construction of hotel in a residential area by providing opportunity to the respondent no. 6 & 7 in accordance with law and pass 6 necessary order in accordance with law within a period of 50 days from today. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib