1 2026:CGHC:1766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 984 of 2021 Gulaba Dinker W/o Late Salik Ram Dinker, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation - House Maid, R/o Plot No. 347, Guru Ghasidas School Road, Ward No. 5, Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur, District Billaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Vikas Bhawan, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner :Shri Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 :Shri Soumya Rai, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No.2. :Shri Mateen Siddique, Advocate For Intervener :Shri Manas Bajpai, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 12.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition questioning the legality and propriety of the notice dated 02.02.2021 and 27.10.2020 (Annexure P-1), issued by respondent No.2- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, while invoking the powers provided under Section 322 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, whereby, the petitioner has been intimated that, if she SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.01.12 18:08:21 +0530 2 does not remove the illegal construction of house over the government land, then the same will be got demolished at the instance of the Municipal Corporation with the help of police administration. 2. While questioning the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- “10.1. issue a writ of mandamus against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner by directing the respondent authorities to not demolish the remaining part of the house of petitioner; 10.2. issue a writ of mandamus against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner by directing the respondent authorities to consider the reply of the petitioner; 10.3. any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice”. 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that a lease deed (Annexure P- 2) was granted to the petitioner on 10.07.1998 under certain terms and conditions stipulated therein under the C.G. Nagariya Kshetron Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhruti Adhokaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam, 1984’) and, one of the conditions stipulated therein, would show that in case, the land over which the lease is granted to the petitioner/lessee is required for the public purpose, then the lessee would be rehabilitated/shifted to another place. The petitioner was granted the alleged lease/patta under the said Adhiniyam, 1984 and the State government has enacted the Rules under the said Adhiniyam, known as “The Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetron Ke Bhumihin Vyakti (Pattadhruti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Rules, 1998” and, if the said Adhiniyam and 3 the Rules framed thereunder, are examined, it would, then show that the petitioner has not acquired any exclusive right over the alleged land allotted to her and, in fact, she is bound by the alleged ‘term’, as observed herein above. It appears further from perusal of the record that the land over which, the lease was granted to the petitioner and who has constructed the house, is required for the purpose of construction of road for the public purpose, therefore, in alternate, the petitioner was allotted the House No.D/8-13, situated at Koni/Birkona under IHSDP Scheme (Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme) vide order dated 01.12.2020, issued by respondent No.2, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, in view of the terms mentioned in her alleged lease deed (Annexure P-2). 4. In view of the aforesaid background, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief under the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita