1 2025:CGHC:33260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3724 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Amarnath Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Kailashpuri Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Zone Commissioner Zone No.-4, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s);- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to set aside order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the compromise application of petitioner providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents may kindly be restrained from demolishing the house of petitioner Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.17 11:10:09 +0530 2 situated in land bearing khasra No. 2/13, seat no. 9, plot no. 27 measuring 1640 sq. feet, Kh. No. 2/9, seat No. 9, plot no. 37 measuring 1660 sq feet total 3300 sq. feet situated in Patwari Halka No. 70, Revenue Circle Raipur 2, Kailashpuri Chowk, Ward No. 64, Tehsil & District Raipur C.G. to may kindly be maintained in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present petition against the inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities whereby on one hand the respondents are not deciding the compromise application filed by the petitioner and on the other hand, employees of respondent Corporation came to house of petitioner on 12.07.2025 and did demarcation and told that demolition can take place at any time, therefore he prays that the respondent Corporation may kindly be restrained from demolition of house and shop of petitioner and his compromise application may kindly be decided in accordance with law after providing proper opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondents to consider the pending compromise application, he is having no objection to the limited prayer and if the petitioner files a fresh compromise application, it will be considered in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the petitioner to file a fresh compromise application along with the revised format/map and along with all relevant documents to the respondents No. 2 & 3 3 within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in turn the respondents No. 2 shall decide the compromise application within a period of 15 days from the date of compromise application filed by the petitioner. 6. Till the compromise application of the petitioner is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti