1 2025:CGHC:43327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4620 of 2025 1 - Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Manharan Lal Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o D-293, Yadunandan Nagar, Ward No. 6 Tifra Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nagar Nigam Through Its Commissioner Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Zone No. 2 Zone Commissioner Nagar Nigam Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 26/08/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has 2 purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 1248/5 total rakba 5200 sq.ft. Sheet No. 14, Plot NO.14 situated at Rajaswa Nigam Mandal, Bilaspur Ward No.2, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Ward, Tifra, Bilaspur for a sum of Rs. 4,63,000/- in the year 2021. After purchasing the said land, the petitioner initiated construction on the diverted plot for which he had paid Rs. 6070/- as Property Tax to the Municipal Corporation Bilaspur on 06.06.2025 whereas the property is described as residential. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an elected Ward member and due to political rivalry, the respondent/authorities are trying to demolish the construction over the land of the petitioner without any intimation or prior notice. Hence he has filed the present petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is premature and therefore the same is not maintainable. 4. In view of the above submissions made by the counsels for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file application under Section 308(b) of the CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 before the respondent authorities and in turn the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law/rules/regulations. 5. It is made clear that his Court has not observed anything on merits of the case and respondent authorities would be at liberty to act in accordance with law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge suguna