1 2025:CGHC:58547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6298 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Amarnath Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Kailashpuri Chowk, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Raipur Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner, Corporation Headquarter, Near Gandhi Maidan, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 4, Raipur Municipal Corporation, Corporation Headquarter, Near Gandhi Maidan, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Shri Avinash Sahu S/o Late Shri Kedar Nath Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Shiv Mandir Chowk, Budhha Talab Dhaal, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/State: Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adovcate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 03 /12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the issuance 2 of the demand order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) from the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashigng and setting- aside the order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to decide the compromise application. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the issuance of the notice of removing extra construction made by the petitioner, he has preferred a writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 3724/2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2025 permitting the petitioner to file a fresh application for compounding of the excess construction made by him before the Respondents No. 2 & 3 therein. Petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 16.07.2025, have submitted a fresh application for compounding on 08.10.2025 which is still pending consideration before the Respondents No. 2 & 3. He submits that instead of deciding the application submitted by the petitioner for compounding of the excess construction, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) for removing the extra construction on the ground that there is some direction of the Lok Ayog. He submits that the said impugned order dated 17.11.2025 is in contravention of direction issued in WP (C) No. 3724/2025 as without deciding the application for compounding, the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) is issued. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 3 opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that as per his instructions, application submitted by the petitioner for compounding is still pending consideration and it will be considered and decided in accordance with law at the earliest. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, submission of counsel for the parties, nature of reliefs, grievance raised and also considering the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 3724/2025 (Annexure P/5) and the fact that fresh application has been submitted by the petitioner for compounding of the excess construction before the Respondents No. 2 & 3 is still pending consideration, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned notice dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable under the law and accordingly, it is quashed. 6. Let the Respondents No. 2 & 3 take decision on the fresh application submitted by the petitioner for compounding of the excess construction of the petitioner in accordance with law, at the earliest. 7. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY