1 2025:CGHC:30866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3441 of 2025 1 - Devi Prasad Kashyap S/o Late Rampal Kashyap Aged About 50 Years R/o Devan Chal, Chingrajpara Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Urban And Administration Of Local Bodies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Municipal Corpration Through The Commissioner Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Bhawan Adhikari Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhader, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 to 4 : Ms. Shruti Praman on behalf of Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29/30.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner has been directed to remove his double-story building and shop for which he has been paying property tax and commercial tax to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is rightful Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.08 10:51:54 +0530 2 owner and possession holder of the double-story building and shop 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 widening the road after demolishing the aforesaid property of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed copy of sale deed dated 20.03.2025 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. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. 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. 6. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti