1 2025:CGHC:34757-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 506 of 2025 1 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 7, Municipal Corporation, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chitralekha Mahalwar W/o Shri Gauri Shankar Mahalwar, Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No. 12, 455/ Kh In Front Of Koteshwar Shiv Mandir Krishna Nagar, Kota Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.23 10:37:42 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants/ Municipal Corporation. Also heard Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/ State. 2. The present writ appeal preferred by the appellants/ Municipal Corporation against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.3493/2022 (Chitralekha Mahalwar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) preferred the writ petition with the contention that the petitioner has constructed her house on her own land, however, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has issued a notice to the petitioner for removal of encroachment made by her. It is further argued that the petitioner has moved an application for settlement of some portion of land for which according to the respondents it is Government Land. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order observing as follows :- “5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to remove tin shed 3 which has been constructed by her. However, so far as boundary wall is concerned the respondent authorities especially the Collector, Raipur is directed to consider her application for grant of lease (patta) of the said land and if any lease (patta) can be granted to the petitioner the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 6. Till the decision of the application for grant of lease (patta) the boundary wall of the petitioner may not be removed. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not made any opinion on merits of the case, it is to the concerned Collector to pass appropriate order in this respect. 8. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 5. (i) Learned counsel for the appellants/ Municipal Corporation would submit that the writ petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authorities wherein they were trying to remove the illegal construction that has been raised by the petitioner encroaching upon the government land. He further submits that upon receipt of a complaint against the petitioner and another person namely Shri Ravi Sahu, alleging obstruction of public pathway through unauthorized construction and possession over the public road, the respondent Corporation in the writ petition conducted a site inspection at the location situated near Kota Koteshwar Mandir, Shaheed Manmohan Singh Bakshi Ward No. 23 and during the said inspection, it was found that both the petitioner and Shri Ravi Sahu had raised an 4 unauthorized tin-shed structure encroaching upon the public road. (ii) Learned counsel further submits that the Corporation ordered a demarcation of the subject land, which was accordingly carried out by the Revenue Inspector, Kota, and the Halka Patwari, Kota, on 27.10.2021. As per the report, the petitioner specifically made a shed, beyond the limits of the sanctioned building plan, thereby encroaching upon the public road without due permission or authority. He would further submit that the respondent Corporation is fully empowered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 to undertake such removal in accordance with due process of law. It is submitted that the petitioner, in reply to the notices issued to her, has admitted to having encroached upon land beyond the sanctioned limits of her plot area. (iii) It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not submitted any application for regularization of the said unauthorized construction before the respondent Corporation, and hence, her plea that no coercive action be taken until a decision on regularization is rendered, is wholly misconceived and untenable. In the absence of any application for regularization, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any equitable relief or protection from demolition. It is further argued that the impugned order passed in favour of the writ petitioner, suffers from serious vices of facts and law and cannot be allowed to 5 sustain and deserves to be interfered with. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the order dated 15/04/2025 and the same is warranting no interference of this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended herein. 8. The Learned Single Judge has observed in the order impugned that the writ petitioner was directed to remove tin shed which has been erected by her. However, so far as boundary wall is concerned the respondent authorities especially the Collector, Raipur was directed to consider her application for grant of lease (patta) of the said land and if any lease (patta) can be granted to the petitioner the same shall be considered in accordance with law and till the decision of the application for grant of lease (patta) the boundary wall of the petitioner may not be removed. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that the Court has not made any opinion on merits of the case, it is to the concerned Collector to pass appropriate order in this respect. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the direction which has been given by the learned 6 Single Judge vide order dated 15/04/2025 in WPC No. 3493/2022 to the Collector concerned and the Municipal Corporation who was impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition has come up before this Court for quashment of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Jyoti