Ravindra Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal

Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 08/09/2025

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 18:17:03 +0530 heard finally.

By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the demolition notice dated 25-08-2025 (Annexure P-1) and also the demolition proceeding initiated by the respondent No.6.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.6 to conduct proper enquiry and to take decision over regularization of petitioner’s shop running at Bazar Chowk Utai, District Durg (C.G.).

10.3 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

Challenge in this petition is to the legality, validity and propriety of the notice dated 25/08/2025 issued by Respondent No.6, whereby the petitioner has been held responsible for construction of floors over the allotted land/shop No.8 situated at Bazar Chowk Utai, District Durg, in the excess of the land allotted to the petitioner and encroachment on the public street and the petitioner has been directed to remove the excess construction over the allotted plot within a period of one week failing which the encroachment would be demolished by the Corporation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is running a shop over the subject land for the past more than 35 years and is earning his livelihood. He would next contend that in the year 2000 the excess construction of the petitioner was regularized by the respondents and for which the petitioner has made payment and till today he is making the necessary payment. He would next contend that the impugned notice of removal of excess construction and encroachment has been issued without following the procedure prescribed under Section 187 and 223 of the C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961. He would lastly contend that no demarcation was conducted before issuing the impugned notice of demolition, therefore, the impugned notice is bad in law and the same deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions made by the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an application for regularization of the excess floors before the Respondent No.6 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the order and in turn the Respondent No.6 shall decide the application for regularization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the application. In the meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner with respect to the excess floors over the allotted land/shop.

It is made clear that this Court has not passed any stay order with respect to the encroachment on drainage and road and this Court has passed the stay order only with respect to excess construction of floors by the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE