1 2025:CGHC:57403-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 861 of 2025 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Municipal, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Harish Rathore S/o Maliram Rathore Aged About 66 Years R/o Jabdapara, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajeev Kashyap S/o Late R.L. Kashyap Aged About 55 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sibudas Vishwas S/o Kanhaiyalal Vishwas Aged About 73 Years R/o Near State Bank, Bijuri, District - Anuppur (M.P.) 4 - Sharda Dewangan W/o Laxman Dewangan Aged About 42 Years R/o H-2-35 Government Quarter, Near Shiv Mandir, Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, And Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - The Zone Commissioner Zone No. 7, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - The Building Officer Municipal Corporation, Vikas Bhawan Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 8 - The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 9 - The Director Town And Country Planning, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26 . 11 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 / writ petitioners and Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was respondent No.2 in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.2707 of 2025, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/ respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein has 3 been disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the respondent/authority to take fresh decision as per law in view of the law laid down in the matter of Raipur Development Authority Vs. Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti and Others, (2000) 4 SCC 357. 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the writ petitioners/ respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the lessee of land bearing Khasra No. 1081/7 admeasuring 2377 sq. ft. situated near Nootan Enclave, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, CG and the petitioner No.1 was granted permanent lease deed on 18.01.2023. The petitioner was also granted a possession certificate in respect of the said land. The petitioners No. 2 to 4 have purchased the land from the petitioner No.1 after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation and at that time there was no objection from the Municipal Corporation. Pursuant to the execution of the lease deed, the petitioner submitted an application for approval of plan under the Chhattisgarh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 before the respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur sanctioned the construction plan on 24.02.2023 and during the course of construction, due to site specific constraints, a deviation occurred in the parking area and the petitioner promptly applied for regularization on 12.08.2023. However, without disposing of the said application or granting any opportunity of hearing, the Municipal Corporation issued a demolition notice dated 28.03.2024, which was challenged by the petitioner No.1 before 4 this Court and vide order dated 30.03.2024, three weeks’ time was granted to the remove the disputed portion and the respondents were directed not to take coercive action during the said period. Pursuant thereto, the unauthorized portion was duly demolished by the respondents. After demolition, the petitioner with an attempt to undertake construction as per law, submitted a fresh building plan on 07.06.2024 under Proposal No. 11361 along with the requisite fees. Despite lapse of several months and repeated representations dated 6.12.2024 and 08.01.2025, to the respondent/Commissioner, his proposal is kept pending. Hence, the petitioners have filed writ petition before this Court being WPC No. 2707of 2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the respondent/authority to take fresh decision as per law in view of the law laid down in the matter of Raipur Development Authority (supra). Hence, this appeal has been filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has gone beyond the jurisdiction in passing the impugned order by issuing direction to the Appellant to take a fresh decision as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority, which was not prayed by the Petitioners/Respondent No. 1 to 4. He further submits that Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 applies only to complete and valid applications. 5 The revised plan dated 07.06.2024 was inherently defective - B-1 form was in the Commissioner's name, requisite land documents were not submitted, and the plan violated mandatory norms. The 60-day period does not commence until a complete application is filed. The Learned Single Judge erred in treating an incomplete application as triggering deemed sanction. He also submits that the judgment in Raipur Development Authority (surpa) applies to cases where the authority fails to act on a valid application. It does not extend to defective or non-compliant proposals/ applications. The Learned Single Judge mechanically applied the precedent without examining the factual matrix of non- compliance, rendering the order legally unsustainable. He contended that the petitioners suppressed that the original construction itself involved unauthorized deviations leading to demolition. The revised plan is a second attempt to legitimize such non-compliance. The Learned Single Judge failed to consider the petitioners' unclean hands and history of violation. He further contended that Section 307 and other provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 provide a specific appellate remedy against refusal or inaction on building plans. The writ petition itself was not maintainable under, especially when disputed questions of compliance with building norms are involved. He also contended that granting deemed sanction would defeat the object of the Adhiniyam, 1973 which is to ensure planned urban development. The application construction affects 6 parking, zoning and public safely. The learned Single Judge cannot compel approval of a plan that prima facie violates statutory norms. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner have submitted fresh proposal for construction of a commercial premise on his plot before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur on 07.06.2024 but within 60 days, the Municipal Corporation neither raised any objection nor sought for any documents from the petitioner and only after a lapse of 6 months and 17 days, the respondent authorities directed the petitioner with a remark that B-1 submitted is on the Commissioner’s name and the land is not submitted, plan is not as per norms which is arbitrary as per the provisions of Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973. Because as per Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, as amended, it states that if the Director of 7 Town and Country Planning fails to communicate a decision on a permission application within 60 days of receiving it, permission is considered automatically granted on the day following the 60-days period. This period excludes any time the Director requisitioned further information or documents from the applicant. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent/authority to take fresh decision as per law in view of the law laid down in the matter of Raipur Development Authority. 11. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned Single Judge has not compelled the appellant/authority for approval of any plan, but has only directed to take fresh decision as per law, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra