1 / 3 2025:CGHC:5283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 560 of 2025 1 - Moh. Abid Ansari S/o Moh. Muslim Ansari Aged About 38 Years R/o Kunwabhattha, Nehru Nagar, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Collector, District Korba (C.G.) 3 – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Officer-In-Charge Of Up Zone, Pt. Ravishankar Nagar, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Aishley Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Adv. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 2 / 3 29/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the notice dated 18/01/2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Office of Up Zone, Pt. Ravishankar Nagar, Municipal Corporation, Korba under Section 302 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act of 1956”) alleging that the petitioner is constructing over the land in question in violation of provision of 293 of the Act of 1956. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has submitted reply to the said notice explaining that the petitioner has not raised any illegal construction over the land/plot in dispute, in spite of the said fact, the Municipal Corporation has issued the notice under Section 302 without considering the reply of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation, on instruction, submits that as the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the said notice, if the petitioner will submit a reply to the said notice explaining that the petitioner is raising construction in accordance with law and within the permissible limit of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and the notice (Annexure P/1). 5. From perusal of the reply (Annexure P/4) submitted by the petitioner to the said notice, it appears that though the reply 3 / 3 should be filed before the Municipal Corporation however, the same has been addressed to the Collector, Korba. At this stage, it is considered that the petitioner has not filed reply to the appropriate authority. 6. As the petitioner has not replied to the notice, the petitioner may submit reply to the notice dated 18/01/2025 before the Municipal Corporation within a period of five days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of filing of such reply or explanation to the Corporation, the Municipal Corporation shall pass a detailed order by considering the reply of the petitioner within a period of 20 days from the date of filing of such reply by the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that till then, the effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 18/01/2025 shall remain stayed. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar