1 CGHC010158862022 2026:CGHC:39911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2268 of 2022 1 - Bhagwati Charan Banchhor S/o H.R. Banchhor Aged About 59 Years R/o Baghel Niwas, Near Gajanan Mandir, Tatyapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporations, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Municipal Corporation Through Building Officer Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Municipal Corporation. Through Zone No. 1 Commissioner Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Urban Administration, Through Its Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan, Atalnagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Urban Administration, Through Its Chief Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Town And Country Planning Through Its Joint Director Reg. Office, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 8 - Registrar Of Co-Operative Society, Station Road, Sansara Badi Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 9 - Registrar Of Revenue / Tahasildar, Registrar Office Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh. RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 10 - Smriti Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Represented By Its President, Smritinagar, Bhilai, Nagar District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 11 - Som Bhatt Madanlal Bhatt, Aged About 51 Years R/o Plot No. 648/z, Road No. 39, Smritinagar Junwani, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 12 - Smt. Baljeet Kaur Khalsa, W/o Indrajeetkhalsa Aged About 35 Years R/o H. No. 192-A, Road No. 31 Ward No.1, Smritinagar Junwani, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Saloni Verma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 5 to 9 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : None For Respondent No.10 : Mr. Abhinaw Tiwari on behalf of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondents No. 11 and 12 : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No. 1 and 2 to remove the illegal occupation over the scheduled land. 3 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No. 10 to take the scheduled land under their hold as the scheduled land cannot be sold to third person in any condition. 10.3 That, the records may be called with regard to the present matter by the concerned authority for the better adjudication of this matter. 10.4 That, to take the action against the concerned authority who granted permission in violation of the provision of the well settled law. 10.5 To direct the Registrar of the societies, to take action against the Respondent No. 10 under the provision of cooperative societies act, 1960. 10.6 To provide Compensation to the petitioner for the continuous harassment by the private respondent and the concerned authorities. 10.7 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The present petition relates to the alleged encroachment and construction over an open land situated adjacent to the main road and between the 100-feet wide road and Street No.25 at Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg. The subject land forms part of the registered layout of Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, approved by the Town and Country Planning Department, Durg, and is situated at Village Junwani, Mandal Durg-1, 4 within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Ward No.2, bearing Khasra No.288/487, admeasuring 880 sq. ft. (81.78 sq. mtrs.). The said open land was sold by respondent No.10 to respondent No.11 vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.08.2004 and was thereafter sold by respondent No.11 to respondent No.12 vide registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.2021. The subject land is not shown as a residential plot in the approved layout of Smriti Nagar, Bhilai and that the application submitted by respondent No.10 seeking alteration in the approved layout was rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner, who is a resident of House No.B-489, Smriti Nagar and a member of respondent No.10-Cooperative Society, had made various complaints and representations before the concerned authorities alleging encroachment and construction over the subject land. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted and the building permission earlier granted in respect of the subject land was cancelled with directions for removal of the alleged encroachment. The Town and Country Planning Department also communicated that the approved layout did not provide for construction over the subject open land. Thereafter, further representations were made before the concerned authorities. Subsequently, the Municipal Corporation stayed the building permission and respondent Nos.11 and 12 were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the construction. It was also indicated that any construction raised in violation of the said order would be liable to be treated as illegal and removed in accordance with law. The proceedings concerning the validity of the Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent No.11 are pending before this Court in F.A. No.163/2016. In the meantime, alleging that construction of a shop 5 over the subject land was being continued, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid facts and the orders passed by the competent authorities, respondents No.11 and 12 have continued with the construction over the subject land and, therefore, appropriate directions are required to be issued for removal of the alleged encroachment. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have placed reliance upon the return filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation/ respondents No. 2 to 4, wherein it has been stated that respondent Nos.11 and 12 are carrying out construction in accordance with law and pursuant to the building permission granted in their favour. It is further submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner stands substantially covered by the order passed by this Court in WPC No.877 of 2022, wherein respondent Nos.11 and 12 were the petitioners and the very order suspending their building permission was under challenge. 5. This Court, in WPC No.877 of 2022, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has already passed an order in favour of respondent Nos.11 and 12. Paragraph 8 of the said order reads as under:- “8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the petitioners appear to have acted bona fide, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) suspending the building permission is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue construction activity strictly in accordance with the fresh building permission dated 11.12.2020 and relevant laws subject to verification and compliance of conditions.” 6 6. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WPC No.877 of 2022, whereby the order suspending the building permission of respondent Nos.11 and 12 has already been quashed and they have been permitted to continue the construction strictly in accordance with the fresh building permission dated 11.12.2020 and the relevant laws, no further direction, as sought for by the petitioner, can be issued in the present proceedings. 7. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has raised several issues touching upon the validity of the sale transaction as well as the status and ownership of the subject land, including reference to the proceedings pending in F.A. No.163/2016. Such disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition, particularly when the construction in question is stated by the Municipal Corporation to be in accordance with the building permission and the earlier order suspending such permission has already been quashed by this Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the grievance raised by the petitioner does not warrant any further interference or issuance of the directions prayed for in the present writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi