1 / 3 2025:CGHC:552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6487 of 2024 1 - Smt. Maya Devi Sahu W/o Shri Triveni Prasad Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Yatiyatan Lal Ward No. 04, Gondwara, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration New Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Zone Commissioner Zone No. 01, Santoshi Nagar Khamtarai District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent/Corporation: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.13 18:05:06 +0530 2 / 3 06/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the notice dated 23/08/2023 and 06/09/2023 issued by the respondents authorities and also seeking a direction towards the respondent/Corporation not to demolish the shops owned by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an application before the Corporation for compounding of illegal construction raised by the petitioner. But, without considering the said application for compounding, the Corporation/respondent proceeded under Section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. He further submits that the respondent may be directed to consider the application moved by the petitioner within the stipulated time. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner has filed the petition questioning the notice under Section 307 of the Act, 1956 and he has not placed the document showing when the compounding application has been filed before the Corporation. He further submits that the petitioner has not produced the requisite document demanded by the Corporation, which is reflected from the Annexure P-3. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the notice as well as Annexure P-3 dated 29/11/2024. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has moved an application for compounding of illegalities in raising 3 / 3 construction of shops in the Municipal Corporation area and the petitioner has submitted an application for compounding, prior to the issuance of notice under Section 307 of the Act, 1956. 6. As per the contentions made by learned counsel for both the parties, the application of compounding is still pending before the Corporation and the same has not been decided, as earlier the petitioner sought time to produce some requisite documents before the Corporation/respondent, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Corporation/respondent and to produce necessary document, which was demanded by the Corporation/respondent withing a period of 15 days from today and the Municipal Corporation Raipur/respondent shall consider the application for compounding in accordance with law, within a period of further 30 days from the receipt the application. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep