1 2026:CGHC:462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5547 of 2025 1. Vinay Saluja S/o Mahendra Saluja Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 122, Gandhi Chowk, Near Panchshil Lodge, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 2. Reena Saluja W/o Vinay Saluja Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 122, Gandhi Chowk, Near Panchshil Lodge, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3. Collector, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 4. District Regularization Committee Through Its Chairman, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 5. Joint Director, Town And Country Planning/ Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL For Respondent (s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.01.06 10:55:13 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 05/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by respondent No. 5 District Regularization Committee/Joint Director Town and Country Planning/ Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Bilaspur, by which the petitioner’s application for regularization of the house constructed at plot Nos. 235/8 and 235/34, Ward No. 33, VIP Colony, Old Bus stand, Bilaspur has been rejected. 2. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents without considering the fact has rejected the claim of the petitioner which is illegal and mala-fide and would pray for quashing of the notice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Corporation would submit that as per provision of Regulation Rule 2002 as amended in the year 2022, the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of filing appeal within 30 days before Revenue Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, as such the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. 4. Since the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of filing the appeal before Revenue Commissioner, Bilaspur, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and is disposed of. In the eventuality of filing of the appeal by the petitioner within 30 days the appellate Authority will not take plea of limitation and will decide the appeal on its own merit. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the contention made by either of the parties or the intervenor and the same is left open for the petitioner as well as the intervenor. 3 5. It is also directed that the interim protection granted to the petitioner on 17.10.2025 will remain in force till the application for stay is not decided by the appellate authority. The interim protection will continue on the condition that the appeal preferred by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order before the Appellate Authority. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh