1 CGHC010318802026 2026:CGHC:36517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4262 of 2026 1 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Darshan Lal Aged About 39 Years R/o- L-31, Avni Vihar Daldal Seoni Mova Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through- Zone Commissioner Zone No. 9, Municipal Corporation Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Mohd. Altamas Zaheer Ali, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the impugned notice dated 11.06.2026 issued by respondent no. 2 to the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to decide the application dated 11.08.2026 filed by the petitioner. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 11.06.2026 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment, failing which necessary action would be taken against him. The said notice has been issued under Section 307(3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has raised certain additional construction beyond the sanctioned building permission; however, he is ready and willing to seek regularization of the same and to deposit the amount, if any, assessed by the competent authority. It is further submitted that an application seeking regularization has already been filed before the competent authority and the same is pending consideration. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the petition, submits that the petitioner has raised construction in excess of and in contravention of the sanctioned building permission. It is contended that the notice dated 11.06.2026 has been issued under Section 307(3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act in accordance with law, calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction. It is further submitted that mere filing of an application for regularization does not confer any right upon the petitioner to continue with the unauthorized construction or to seek protection from the statutory action initiated by the Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the photographs placed on record. From the photographs, it appears that certain windows have been opened on the side facing the adjoining premises of the petitioner’s neighbour. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to close the said windows and thereafter get the wall duly plastered. 6. Considering the aforesaid submission and the nature of the dispute, the Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is ready and willing to remove/close the windows adjoining the neighbouring premises, the Municipal Corporation shall pass an appropriate order and issue necessary directions to the concerned neighbour not to obstruct the 4 petitioner in plastering the wall or closing/removing the said windows, in accordance with law. 7. The application for compounding, if any, filed by the petitioner shall also be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, in a pregmatic manner, so that the petitioner does not suffer unnecessary inconvenience. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha