1 2025:CGHC:4201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5593 of 2024 1 Smt. Tara W/o Shri Dileshwar Dewangan, Aged About 62 Years Residence Of Marin Drive, Naya Kostapara, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 The Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 3 The Tahsildar (Nazul), Raigarh, Tahsil-Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 4 The Builder Officer, Nagar Palika Nigam, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 2 & 4 : Shri Atanu Ghosh on behalf of Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 23/01/2025 Heard. 2 1. By the present petition the petitioner who is residing at the house situated at seat No. 57 Plot No. 226, area 1354 Sq. ft. of Nazul land of Raigarh, District Raigarh is questioning the notice dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner has been directed to remove the illegal construction raised by the petitioner over the said land in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing in the house built by her predecessor (Grand Mother) in the year 1970-71 and she is making payment of property tax and other taxes raised by the Municipal Corporation. He further submits that the issuance of notice to the petitioner is without jurisdiction and the same is not in accordance with the law. He further submits that the Municipal Corporation cannot direct the petitioner to remove the construction made over the land. 3. Learned counsel for Municipal Corporation/ respondents No. 2 & 4 submits that show cause notices dated 25.10.2024 and 04.11.2024 have been issued to the petitioner to explain about the alleged encroachment made by her, however, the petitioner failed to explain the same. He submits that the petitioner even refused to accept the notice dated 04.11.2024. He further submits that if the petitioner will response/ reply to the show cause notice within a stipulated time the Corporation will consider the same and pass the order in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the reply filed by the Municipal Corporation/ respondents No. 2 & 4. 5. Perusal of the reply of the Municipal Corporation shows that on two occasions show cause notices were issued to the petitioner but the petitioner failed to explain the same and now the present writ petition has been filed questioning the order of removal of encroachment dated 25.10.2024. Considering the same, the petitioner is directed to file reply to the show cause notice by explaining about the alleged illegal encroachment made by her within a period of 15 days to the Municipal Corporation and on the event 3 of filing of such reply to the show cause notice, the Municipal Corporation is directed to pass a detailed order, in accordance with law, by considering the reply filed by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today. It is further directed that till then the interim relief granted on 08.11.2024 shall remain operative. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti