Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:46471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4850 of 2025 Sheikh Nasruddin S/o Shri Sheikh Badruddin Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 14-A, Road No. 21, Sector-2, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector, Durg, District Durg C.G. 3 - Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, Akashganga, Supela, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District- Durg C.G. 4 - Building Permission Officer, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, Akashganga, Supela, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District- Durg C.G. ... Respondents : For Petitioner : For State For Respondent No.3 :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ajit Singh, GA Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.16 13:42:09 +0530 heard finally. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the legality, 2 / 5 validity, correctness and propriety of the notice dated 18/08/2025 issued by Respondent No.3 i.e. the Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the unauthorized construction and encroachment to the excess land apart from his housing-cum-commercial plot within a period of 15 days. 3. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner retired from his service from Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. He has purchased commercial cum residential plot admeasuring 149 Square meter(1606.514 square feet) situated in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chowk (Gada Chowk) Supela- Kohaka Road, Supela, Bhilai. He has obtained the building permission (no. 20730) of afore said plot from the office of respondent no.02 & 03 i.e. Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai on 11/04/2022 but due to financial reasons, petitioner could not complete his construction work within the prescribed period of 2 years. The aforesaid building permission was valid up to only two years. After the expiry of two years, petitioner applied for second building permission with lower ground parking permission for which building permission was not sought in previous building permission. The second building permission(26300) was granted to the petitioner on 06/12/2024 by respondent no.04 for which petitioner has paid compromise fess of Rs. 84,580/- along with Building Permission of Rs. 10852 and other charges of Rs. 36,236/-. After the payment of fees and fine, respondent no.03 regularized the ground floor occupied area. After getting the building permission from 3 / 5 respondent no.04, when he was about to start his building construction work, he came to know the fact that adjoining buildings and building of same locality have been constructed in more commercially viable way as compare to the petitioner's sanction map. They cover more space of land for construction as compare to the permission granted to the petitioner by respondent no.-4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, it is not the case of the respondent authorities that alleged encroachment is made on corporation or state government land or building would be a nuisance or injurious to the inhabitants of the neighborhood to the public. He would next contend that other buildings of the same building line or vicinity have also occupied 100% of their land for construction which have been regularized by the respondents authorities regularization schemes time to time under. He would next contend that offences under section 293 and section 294 of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1956’) regarding unauthorized building construction without permission are compoundable in nature. The Act 1956, specifically in its section 308(A) & 308(B) and other sections has made the offences of construction of buildings without permission compoundable. He would next contend that all aforesaid proceeding against petitioner has been initiated upon the compliant of one Allauddin who has some personal grudge with the petitioner just to settle his personal vendetta with the petitioner, he made his first compliant on 01/07/2024 against petitioner with regard to the plot 4 / 5 regarding unauthorized an endless series of similar construction and thereafter complaints and notices in pursuance of the complaints have begun against the petitioner. He would next contend that has made seven similar complaints against the petitioner and in persuasion of every compliant, respondent no.03 & 04 have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner which is arbitrary in nature and sheer abuse of process of law, however petitioner has duly replied each and every notice served upon him. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the petitioner is the encroacher as the petitioner has constructed the commercial complex over the 100% of the land of the petitioner and extra 500 sq. feet of the other person. 6. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid 500 sq. feet land belongs to the brother of the petitioner and he has no objection and there is provision of regularization. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of the final notice Annexure P/6 dated 18/08/2025 which only mentions that the representation made by the petitioner is not satisfactory and unreasonable, therefore, the application of the petitioner has been rejected. 9. Why the representation of the petitioner has not been found to be satisfactory no reason has been assigned by the concerned 5 / 5 Commissioner and considering the provision of regularization as provided in the Act, 1956, it is directed that the petitioner shall file the application for regularization under the provisions of Act, 1956 before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such representation being filed, the concerned Commissioner shall decide the same expeditiously as soon as possible preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representation of the petitioner on its own merits. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands
Decision
disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu