1 2025:CGHC:4279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5722 of 2024 1 - Anuradha Thakur W/o Vinayak Thakur Aged About 50 Years Old R/o Vijay Ward No. 2, Dokrighatpara, Jagdalpur, Tehsil- Jagdalpur District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 :Shri Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2. :Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.23 23:03:32 +0530 2 23.01.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is a owner of land bearing Khasra No. 71/6 area of 0.448 hectare sitauted at Jagdalpur, District Bastar preferred the present writ petition seeking quashment of (Annexure P/1) i.e. a notice under Section 307(2)(a) of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, by which the Commissioner has directed the petitioner to remove the illegal construction raised by the petitioner on the land in question. The petitioner is also seeking a quashment of the show cause notice (Annexure P/2) dated 16.10.2024, by which the SDO (R) has asked the petitioner to explain about the illegal construction over the land in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notice of removal under Section under Section 307(2)(a) has been issued by the Commissioner without issuance of proper show cause notice to him, as the show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Engineer who is not competent to issue notice under Section 307(2)(a) of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation would submit that the notice for illegal construction has been given by the Commissioner only after issuance of show cause notice by the Corporation to the petitioner and by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned notice of removal of illegal construction has been issued. 4. I have heard both the counsels for the parties and perused the notice issued under Section under Section 307(2)(a) of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. 3 5. From perusal of the notice, it appears that the notice has been issued by the Commissioner only after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, however, as per the pleadings and contention of the petitioner that show cause notice issued to the petitioner was not by competent authority. The impugned notice dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) is quashed, however, the respondent corporation is at liberty to issue appropriate show cause notice under Section under Section 307(2)(a) to the petitioner by the competent authority within a period of 10 days and on the event of issuance of said show cause notice, the petitioner is directed to submit reply to the show cause notice within a further period of 10 days and necessary order be passed by the Commissioner within a period of 30 days from today. As far as the question to (Annexure P/2) i.e. show cause notice issued by the SDO (R), the petitioner is at liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice by submitting explanation to the alleged illegalities, which has been pointed out by the SDO (R) within a period of 25 days from today. The SDO shall consider the objection filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib