1 2025:CGHC:51701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5368 of 2025 1 - Smriti Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti Maryadit, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) Having Registration No. 68/11.11.80 Through Its President Shri Rajeev Choubey, S/o Late B.K. Choubey, Aged About 55 Years, R/o A-79, Street No. 23, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Rajeev Choubey S/o Late B.K. Choubey Aged About 55 Years President Of Smriti Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti Maryadit, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg And R/o A-79, Street No. 23, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai, A Body Constituted Under Relevant Provisions Of The Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 Acting In The Premises Through Its Commissioner, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. BP Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Manish Upadhyay & Mr. ML Saket, Advocate. For Municipal Corporation : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Caveator : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16.10.2025 2 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10. RELIEF SOUGHT (S):- A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for the records of case pertaining the petitioners' case from the respondents concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of case. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the impugned order dated 26.9.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. D. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that question involved for the purpose of present petition, is relating to effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 292(F) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, ‘Act of 1956’) and consequent to which respondent No.2’s jurisdiction to take over the management of land/colony and in such cases the power of this Court to set the things in order keeping in mind the axiomatic truth that when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. Petitioners seek to challenge the impugned order dated 26.9.2025 3 issued by concerned respondent-authority taking over management of land/colony developed by the petitioners without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1956. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 3. On instruction received from the concerned Authority, learned counsel for the respondent/Municipal Corporation contended that order impugned has been passed on the basis of illegal sale of housing plots by the petitioners and application for renewal of the colonizer licence of the petitioners has been rejected by the Commissioner concerned and the Commissioner has right to pass the order. Relevant portion of impugned order reads as under: “……. अतः राज्य शासन के उपराक्तः आदेशा दिदेनके 26.10.2013 में दिदेय गय निनदेशानसन स्मेंनितः गह निनमेंण सहकेरा सस्था मेंयदिदेत्त, जुनवान भि&लाई के के)लानईजुरा लाईसस नवा न केराण हतः प्रस्तःतः आवादेन उपराक्तः निवावाचन अनसरा अस्वा के तः निकेय जुतः ह,। ……..आवादेके समिमेंनितः द्वारा निवाकेसिसतः उपराक्तः के)लान , के प्रबंधन निनगमें पक्ष में सिलाय जुन हतः जुन आयक्तः, जुन क्रमेंके 01. नगरापसिलाके निनगमें भि&लाई के आदेसिशातः निकेय जुतः ह,।'.” 4. Learned counsel for Municipal Corporation on instruction further contended that process for taking over management of land/colony of alleged illegal colonization is still pending for consideration, therefore, this writ petition is pre-mature. He also pointed out that the first public notice has been published in the local newspapers today itself and, thereafter, two remaining public notice will be published in the local newspapers for the purpose of the taking 4 over the management of land/colony of alleged illegal colonization and objection will be sought for from the colonizers, plots holder and general public. 5. Learned counsel for the Caveator contended that he is the complainant in this case and petitioner has committed so many illegalities and irregularities and, thereby, sale the housing plots illegally. 6. During course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that today he has filed documents dated 10.10.2025 alongwith covering memo dated 16.10.2025 showing that respondent-authority concerned has already taken over the management of land/colony developed by the petitioners. Relevant portion of said documents dated 10.10.2025 reads as under: “ उपराक्तः निवाषयतःगतः एवा रादेर्भि&9तः आदेशानसरा स्मेंनितः गह निनमेंण सहकेरा सस्था मेंयदिदेतः जुनवान भि&लाई के प्रबंधन नगरा निनगमें भि&लाई के पक्ष में सिलाय गय ह,।" 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including the documents/material available on record. 8. Section 292(F) of the Act of 1956 reads as under: “292F. Commissioner to take over the management of the land of illegal Colonization. - (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) The Commissioner shall cause to be published a public notice three times in the local newspapers for the purpose of taking over the management of land of 5 illegal colonization. After the publication of such notice if any objection is received from the colonizer or the plot holder it shall be considered by the Commissioner and if no objection is received then the Commissioner shall take over the management of such land and cause the area to be planned and developed in such manner as may be prescribed and allot the plots in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.” 9. Perusal of section 292(F)(2) of the Act of 1956 reveals that the Commissioner is duty bound to published a public notice three times in the local newspapers for the purpose of taking over the management of land/colony of illegal colonization, however, in case at hand without published a public notice three times in the local newspapers for the purpose of taking over the management of land of illegal colonization, respondent/Municipal Corporation has passed the order and taken the management of land/colony developed by the petitioner-Society. 10.In view of above discussion/observation, the impugned order dated 26.9.2025 (Annexure P-1) to the extent of ‘ आवादेके समिमेंनितः द्वारा निवाकेसिसतः उपराक्तः के)लान , के प्रबंधन निनगमें पक्ष में सिलाय जुन हतः जुन आयक्तः , जुन क्रमेंके 01. नगरापसिलाके निनगमें भि&लाई के आदेसिशातः निकेय जुतः ह,। ' is hereby quashed. 11. Matter is remanded back to the concerned respondent-authority with a direction that if they desire for taking over the management of land/colony of illegal colonization of the petitioners, they shall 6 strictly follow the relevant rules/law/regulation and also keeping in mind the procedure prescribed under sub-clause (2) of Section 292(F) of the Act of 1956. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-