SMT v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur

Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

22.03.2025

Heard on admission. -2-

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of Survey No.752, admeasuring 0.028 hectares, situated at Village Gudiyari, District Raipur, where the petitioner has raised a construction of boundary wall. He would further submit that on 21.6.2019, a show-cause notice under the provisions of Section 307(2)(A) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was issued and three days’ time was granted to the petitioner to remove the construction of the boundary wall. He would contend that the notice states that notices under Section 293(1)(i)(ii) and Section 302 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act, 1956’) were served on the petitioner but no such notices were issued to the petitioner and the decision for demolition was taken. Thereafter, a part of the boundary wall was demolished by the respondents on 24.6.2019. He would also contend that the action of respondent No.4 was illegal, arbitrary, malafide and in violation of principles of natural justice. He would pray to quash the notice dated 21.6.2019.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the notices under Sections 293 & 302 of the Act, 1956 were issued to the petitioner, but the copies of those notices could not be placed on record. He would further submit that if the petitioner shall approach the Municipal Authorities, a fresh 3 decision would be taken. He would contend that the action of partial demolition was taken to ensure the smooth flow of rainy water, following a complaint of local residents. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the contention raised by counsel for respondent No.4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

The notice dated 21.6.2019 would show that earlier notices under Section 293 and 302 of the Act, 1956 were issued, but respondent No.4 could not place those notices on record. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. Consequently, the notice dated

21.6.2019 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.4 would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised.

With regard to the compensation for the partial demolition of the boundary wall, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to the law.