1 2025:CGHC:33608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3714 of 2025 1 - Bhagwan Das Sahu S/o Shri Sheetal Prasad Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Front Of Mastana Temple Chantidih Bilaspur, District And Tehsil Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Building Officer Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Zone Commissioner Zone No.7, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, learned G.A. For Respondent No. 3 to 5 : Mr. Venketesh Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner has been directed to remove his 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 owner and possession holder of land and shop for which he has been Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.17 18:16:10 +0530 2 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 (Annexure P/2) 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 the respondents shall demarcate the land of the petitioner in his presence of the petitioner after issuing notice to the petitioner for removal of construction and thereafter if it is found that the land of the petitioner is being used for construction of the road, necessary steps be taken for payment of compensation towards the land owned by the petitioner in accordance with law. Till the demarcation of the land of the petitioner is done, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti