1 2025:CGHC:44838-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 646 of 2025 1 - Baby Farida Khatun W/o Late Shri Jabbar Ali Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Chantidih Rapta Chowk, Teh. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Urban Administration And Development Department Cg, Ministry, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Office Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Building Officer Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.04 10:39:59 +0530 2 For Appellant : Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1& 2/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 & 4. : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.09.2025 1. Heard Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition WPC No. 3631of 2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is residing at Chantideeh, Tahsil Bilaspur, within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, where her residential house is situated over portions of Khasra Nos. 560/01, 378/05, and 372/03. It is 3 stated that the appellant and her family members have been in continuous possession of the said property for more than sixty years since the lifetime of her parents and forefathers, and the land is not part of any Government or Municipal property. It is further submitted that in April 2025, respondent No. 4 issued a notice for road widening and demolished a substantial portion of her house, as evident from photographs (Annexure P/04). Thereafter, on 29.06.2025, another notice (Annexure P/03) was issued with the intent to demolish the remaining portion of her house, without any measurement, survey, or due process, allegedly to benefit certain private persons. The appellant contends that only a small portion of her house now remains, and any further demolition would render her and her family homeless, particularly during the rainy season. The appellant had earlier submitted complaints before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Annexure P/01) and had also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2768 of 2025, wherein this Court, by order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/02), issued necessary directions. She further submits that she has been paying municipal taxes regularly and also has a separate electricity connection in the said house. Despite this, 4 respondent No. 4 has again issued a notice without affording any opportunity of hearing, directing her to vacate/demolish the house. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioners have accepted the fact that they have encroached the Government land and respondent nos. 3 and 4 have issued notice on 27th of June, 2025 under Section 322/323 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Till now, no documents have been filed by the petitioner showing the ownership of the disputed land, which reveals that the disputed land (road and drainage of the land) has been duly encroached by the petitioners. 7. Hence, looking to the mere fact that the petitioners till now have been unable to file the documents pertaining to the ownership of the disputed land and the demolition is on the verge to end, this Court finds 5 that the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge erred in summarily dismissing the writ petition without calling for a reply from the respondents and without considering the material facts and documents on record. It is urged that the appellant had only sought a direction for disposal of her representation (Annexure P/01) after affording her an opportunity of hearing, so that ownership documents could be produced before the competent authority. Instead, the petition was dismissed on presumptions, despite the fact that the respondents have not yet decided the said representation. The impugned order, therefore, causes grave prejudice to the appellant, deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the only one room is left for demolition whereas the other part of the disputed land has already been demolished by respondent No. 3 & 4 and further submit that the learned Single Judge, upon due consideration of the admitted facts and the failure of the appellant to produce any ownership documents, has 6 rightly dismissed the writ petition. Since the order impugned is based on correct appreciation of facts and law, it does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. From a bare perusal of the above findings, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the basis of admitted facts that the disputed property is a Government land which has been encroached by the petitioner, and further that no ownership documents have been placed on record despite opportunity. 9. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant is an encroacher over Government land and has failed to substantiate any ownership claim. 10. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of 7 appellate jurisdiction. 11. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib