1 CGHC010384632026 2026:CGHC:42094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4991 of 2026 1 - Sunil Mistri S/o Late Jago Mistri Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 42, Rumgara, Balco, Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation, Korba Through Its Commissioner, Main Office, Saket Bhawan, I.T.I. Chowk, Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - The Building Officer Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mrs. Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Priyank Rathi, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing/set aside the impugned notice issued by the respondent Nagar Palik Nigam, Korba insofar as proposes/initiates coercive PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.09.30 10:45:44 +0530 2 demolition action against the petitioner's property, in accordance with law. ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from carrying out or continuing any demolition, dispossession, sealing or other coercive action against the petitioner's property/residential structure situated upon Khasra Nos. 758/4 and 758/5 during pendency of the present writ petition. iii. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's ownership, revenue, planning, sanctioned-plan and municipal Building Permission documents and, before taking any further coercive action, afford the petitioner a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. iv. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession and the physical condition of the subject property during pendency of the present writ petition. v. Any other relief or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice dated 16.09.2026 is vague and, on the face of it, is not in accordance with law, as there is no description of the land in respect of which the alleged encroachment has been made. According to the petitioner, he has not made any encroachment upon the land, and the notice does not specify any particular portion where the alleged encroachment has been made. She further submits that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to 3 the petitioner and a vague notice has been issued directly. She, therefore, prays that the impugned notice be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 2 and 3 fairly submits that the notice is vague and not in accordance with law. He submits that a fresh notice shall be issued after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and examining whether the petitioner is in possession of his own land or not and thereafter, appropriate proceedings shall be taken. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the vagueness of the notice, this Court is inclined to quash the said notice and direct the respondent authorities to first determine whether the petitioner is in illegal occupation of any land or not. Accordingly, they shall issue a notice to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of hearing. They shall also consider the documents supplied by the petitioner and thereafter, after giving due opportunity of hearing, pass a fresh notice or order in accordance with law. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Priyanka