1 2025:CGHC:38252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4098 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Arora S/o Harvanshlal Arora Aged About 62 Years R/o Behind Krishna Shopping Mall, Shubhash Chowk, Raigarh, Tehsil And Dist. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Of Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - The Nazul Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The Building Officer Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief(s);- Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.06 10:51:41 +0530 2 (10.1) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondent authorities. (10.2) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, thereby setting aside/ quashing the impugned letter/notice dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the legality of impugned letter/notice dated 10.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner has been asked to remove the unauthorized additional construction carried out by the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner having already deposited additional payment towards the additional construction, as directed by the respondent No. 2 itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the recorded owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 216/2, 216/3, 216/4 & 216/5 admeasuring area 1030 sq. ft. 480 sq. ft., 348 sq. ft. & 650 sq. ft. respectively total area 2508 sq. ft. Situated at Subhash Chowk, Raigarh, Tehsil & Dist. Raigarh (C.G). The petitioner has purchased the aforesaid lands through registered sale deeds and on the basis of sale deeds, the said lands have been mutated in the name of the petitioner in records. The petitioner applied before the competent authority for permission for construction of shops over the aforesaid land and after due process of law, the concerned authority issued permission for construction of shops vide ANNEXURE P-3. After obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Municipal 3 Authority, the petitioner has constructed shops as per the approved map and conditions imposed by the respondent authority, however, after construction of shops and house over the aforesaid lands, all of a sudden the Respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice dated 02.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as "show cause notice"), alleging that the petitioner had constructed the shops/building contrary to the permission and, therefore, directed the petitioner to remove the construction, failing which, the construction shall be removed by the Municipal Authority, being aggrieved by the said show cause notice, the petitioner challenged the same before this Hon'ble Court vide Writ Petition bearing no. WPS 3819/2024 (hereinafter referred to as "Writ petition") seeking setting aside/quashing the same. On 31.07.2024, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the said Writ Petition, whereby the said show cause notice was set aside/quashed against the Respondent No. 2, inter alia with liberty to the Respondent No. 2 to issue afresh notice, if required. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the petitioner wrote to the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 30.10.2024, wherein inter alia, the petitioner informed that while the construction was being carried out on the piece of land owned by the petitioner, inadvertently a part of it has been additionally constructed and that the petitioner intends to get it approved and in respect of which he volunteered to pay the requisite amount as per law and, therefore, the petitioner requested that the said construction mistake qua additional construction be condoned and the additional construction be re-assessed and appropriate orders for depositing the amount be passed accordingly. Upon 4 consideration of the said request letter, the Respondent No. 2, on 08.11.2024, issued a correspondence bearing no. 2550 dated 08.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as "consideration letter"), to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was directed to make a deposit in the bank in favour of Respondent No. 2 for an additional payment of Rs. 2,71,325/-(hereinafter referred to as "additional payment") towards further procedure of approval qua the additional construction, so inadvertently carried out by the petitioner. On the same date ie, on 08.11.2024, in compliance with the said consideration letter, the petitioner deposited the said additional payment with the Respondent No. 2, which was made towards further procedure of approval qua additional construction carried out by the petitioner. However, on 10.06.2025, the Respondent No. 2, despite having received the said additional payment towards further procedure of approval qua the additional construction, went ahead and issued the impugned communication letter/notice of the same date (Annexure P-1) qua the same issue of unauthorized additional construction and inter alia directed the petitioner to either get the additional construction removed by the petitioner himself or that the same will be removed by their concerned team dealing with removing of encroachment and unauthorized construction on 24.06.2025 at 11:00. Being aggrieved by the said impugned notice, the petitioner replied back to the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 23.06.2025 (hereinafter referred to as "final reply letter") wherein, the petitioner informed the entire backdrop related to the issue of additional construction and that as per agreement between the Respondent No. 2 and the petitioner as mentioned in the said 5 correspondence letter dated 08.11.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner has already deposited the additional amount towards further procedure of approval qua the said additional construction and the receipt of same can be referred bearing Book No. 26 and Receipt No. 60, and, therefore, the petitioner requested that after having paid the said additional amount in compliance of the directions passed by the Respondent No. 2 in the said consideration letter, the impugned letter/notice be kindly be cancelled and the case be closed. 5. Lastly, learned counsel however, the said final reply letter made by the petitioner has not been considered till date and, as such, and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner has preferred this petition as the petitioner is under constant apprehension qua any demolition activity or removal action which might be carried out by the Respondent No. 2, despite the petitioner having met the requirement of payment of additional payment towards the said additional construction. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Municipal Corporation produced documents before this Court and submits that the petitioner himself stated in his affidavit that he has made encroachment and he would remove the enroachment himself. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The documents submitted by the learned counsel for Municipal Corporation which are taken on records. On perusal of document, it transpires from the para-2 of the affidavit dated 11.11.2024 and dated 04.11.2024 that ;g dh esjs }kjk fiNs iqoZ fn’kkk rFkk cktq nf{k.k fn’kk 6 ds xyh esa Nttk fudky dj vfrfjDr fuek.kZ dk;Z fd;k x;k gS mls esjs Lo;a ds }kjk rksM+k tkosxk A ;g fd esjs }kjk estsukbu ry esa 30-577 oxZehVj fu;e ds fo:/k vfrfjDr fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS mls esjs Lo;a ds }kjk rksM+k tkosxk A ;g fd esjs }kjk izFke ry esa 57-335 oxZehVj] f}rh; ry esa 63-087 oxZehVj ,oa rhljk ry esa 63-087 oxZehVj FAR fu;e ds vuqlkj vfrfjDr fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS ftls esa Lo;a ds }kjk rksM+k tkosxk] ugh rksMus fd fLFkfr esa bldh laEiq.kZ tokcnsgh esjh Lo;a fd gksxh A 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has himself stated in his affidavit that he has made encroachment and he would himself remove the said encroach, at this juncture no relief can be granted to the petitioner. As such the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti