1 2025:CGHC:49903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 262 of 2025 1 - Shrimati Mamta Dewangan W/o Shri Sureshchand Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Kamal Vihar, Sector-11, A.I.- 04, Dundha, Raipur, Tehsil And Disaster- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Shrimati Madhuri Sahu W/o Shri Chandrashekhar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Sector-11, Kamal Vihar, Sudhir Mukherjee Ward No. 54, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Zone Commissioner, Zone Number-10, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 prayer:- “It is therefore prayed the Hon'ble Court may kindly be allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Court below 4/9/25 (Annexure A-3) and allowed the appellant application under Section 307 (5) of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act throughout with cost and direct for removal of the unauthorized construction done by the respondent no. 1 in the interest of justice. Any other relief reliefs this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the applicant, residing with her family at Kamal Vihar, Sector-11, Ward No. 54, Sudhir Mukherjee Ward, Bhukhand Number A-1-04, Raipur, filed an application under Section 307(5) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act seeking the removal of unauthorized construction by respondent no. 1, the owner of the adjacent land bearing Bhukhand No. 141/1. The applicant alleged that respondent No. 1 began unauthorized excavation on her land to construct a basement, which caused damage to her boundary wall and columns, posing a danger to her family’s safety. Upon inspection, she found that the respondent had commenced construction without approved plans, blocking her access to air and sunlight 3 by obstructing her windows. Despite lodging a complaint with respondent No. 2, no action was taken, prompting her to approach the District Judge, Raipur. Respondent No. 1 denied any unauthorized construction, claiming the work was done by her nephew as per approved plans. Respondent No. 2, after inspection, confirmed extra digging beyond approved plans and noted a pending application for regularization by respondent No. 1. The appellant then sought a restraining order under Section 151, which was granted on 22/7/2024, halting further construction. Respondent No. 1’s attempt to vacate this order was dismissed on 27/9/2024. However, on 4/9/2025, the learned court rejected the appellant’s application despite acknowledging the unauthorized construction, deferring the matter to respondent no. 2 for further action. The appellant contends that the court erred in dismissing her application under Section 307(5) of the Act. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent No. 1 has initiated unauthorized construction activities, which are adversely impacting the applicant’s house and boundary wall. In the impugned order dated September 4, 2025, specifically in paragraph 19, the concerned appellate court noted that the basement being constructed by Respondent No. 1 does not conform to the approved sanctioned plan. Consequently, the 4 court directed the Municipal Corporation, Raipur acting as the respondent, to take appropriate and necessary action against Respondent No. 1 to address this violation and mitigate the damage caused to the applicant’s property. 4. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Raipur respectfully submits that, during the course of adjudication, the concerned Court explicitly addressed this issue in paragraph 22 of its order. The Court clearly stated that if any illegal construction is discovered, appropriate action shall be initiated not only against Respondent No. 1 but also against the applicant, provided it is established that any unauthorized or excess construction has been carried out. This demonstrates the Court’s intent to hold all parties accountable should violations of construction regulations be identified, thereby reinforcing the principle of strict compliance with applicable laws and norms governing building activities. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, submits with emphasis that the applicant has not undertaken any excess construction whatsoever, asserting that all constructions carried out by the applicant fully comply with the prescribed regulations and limits. In contrast, it is contended that Respondent No. 1 has clearly engaged in excess construction activities, a fact that is explicitly supported by the findings outlined in paragraph 19 of 5 the order dated 4th September 2025. This distinction is critical to the matter at hand, underscoring that any allegations of unauthorized construction pertain solely to Respondent No. 1 and not to the applicant, thereby necessitating a careful and differentiated consideration of the respective parties’ actions as documented in the aforementioned order. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel representing the Municipal Corporation, Raipur respectfully submits that they are fully committed to adhering to the order in both its letter and spirit, as explicitly outlined in paragraphs 19 and 22. They assure the court that they will diligently undertake all necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the directives. Furthermore, in the event that the construction in question is determined to be illegal, the Municipal Corporation will promptly initiate appropriate action against the individual responsible, demonstrating their intent to uphold the rule of law and maintain regulatory standards. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In light of the earnest and well-reasoned submission presented by the learned counsel representing the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, it is anticipated that the Municipal Corporation, Raipur will diligently and promptly undertake all necessary and appropriate measures against the individual(s) involved, ensuring that such 6 actions are carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. This expectation is grounded in the commitment expressed by the counsel and the Corporation’s responsibility to uphold legal standards and accountability. 9. It is explicitly clarified and unequivocally established that the Municipal Corporation of Raipur has not been authorized or granted any license, permit, or legal sanction to dismantle, demolish, or interfere with any property in any manner whatsoever without strictly adhering to the prescribed due process of law. Any action undertaken by the Municipal Corporation in relation to such properties must be conducted in full compliance with all applicable legal procedures, regulations, and guidelines to ensure the protection of property rights and the observance of lawful protocols. 10. With this observation and direction, the civil revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat