1 2025:CGHC:3239 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4554 of 2024 1 - Vinay Saluja S/o Mahendra Saluja Aged About 55 Years Resident Of House No. 122, Gandhi Chowk, Near Panchshil Lodge, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Reena Saluja W/o Vinay Saluja Aged About 52 Years Resident Of House No. 122, Gandhi Chowk, Near Panchshil Lodge, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Building, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Building OfÏcer Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Zonal Commissioner Zone No. 5, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. A.S. Kacchawaha, Advocate For Intervener : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.21 10:29:08 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 17/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning notice dated 30/08/2024 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.3/Building OfÏcer, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur by which the petitioners were directed not to raise any construction over the land bearing Khasara No. 235/8 situated at VIP Colony, beside Shiv Talkiz, Bilaspur. The petitioners were also directed to remove illegal construction raised by them within 3 days. 2. In the earlier round of litigation i.e. in WPC No. 7/2024 filed by the same petitioner, the petition was disposed of with the following observation:- “6. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that notices were issued to the petitioners by the Building OfÏcer, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur for the removal of illegal construction. There is a scheme floated by the State Government for regularization of illegal construction and the petitioners have already moved an application in this regard. Further, there is also a provision under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 i.e. Section 308-A of the Act 1956. If the petitioners have not moved any application in this regard, they would be at liberty to move an appropriate application however if they have already moved such an application, the respondent authorities shall consider the said application strictly in accordance with existing law. 3 7. The intervener would be at liberty to approach the Municipal Corporation for redressal of his grievances.” 3. During the pendency of the said writ petitioner and before passing of the final order date 16/01/2024 in WPC No. 7/2024, the petitioners had moved an application for regularization of the alleged illegal construction made by them. The said application was rejected by the District Regularization Committee vide order dated 10/09/2024 (Annexure-P/13) passed in bearing no. 4723/्ቚ.्ቅ. Z- 05/189/2022. The rejection order was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur by filing an appeal, which is still pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notice dated 30/08/2024 has been issued by the Building OfÏcer in illegal manner with mala-fide intention,therefore, the notice should be quashed. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State as well as for the Intervener, jointly submit that the petitioners have already challenged the rejection order dated 10/09/2024 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur and the same is pending . As the petitioners’ regularization application has already been rejected, therefore, notice for removal of the illegal construction has been issued by the respondent No.3, which is just and proper. Learned State counsel would further submit that the petitioners’ appeal challenging the rejection of order of 4 regularization is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, and the same shall be considered within 25 days from today. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the rejoinder submitted by the petitioners, it appears that the regularization application filed by the petitioners has already been rejected by the District Regularization Committee and the same is under challenge before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur in an appeal filed on 30/09/2024 by the petitioners. 8. As the appeal is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur, therefore, the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur is directed to consider the said appeal and decide the same within 25 days from today in accordance with law. Till the decision in appeal filed by the petitioners, the interim order granted on 11/09/2024 in WPC No. 7/2024 shall remain operative. The petitioners shall apprize the order of this Court to the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul