The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling affirming that unauthorized constructions on government land must be removed, emphasizing the necessity for a regularization application to claim equitable relief.

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

22 .07.2025

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants/

Municipal Corporation. Also heard Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/

State.

2. The present writ appeal preferred by the appellants/ Municipal Corporation against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.3493/2022 (Chitralekha Mahalwar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) preferred the writ petition with the contention that the petitioner has constructed her house on her own land, however, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has issued a notice to the petitioner for removal of encroachment made by her. It is further argued that the petitioner has moved an application for settlement of some portion of land for which according to the respondents it is Government Land.

4. The said writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order observing as follows :-

“5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to remove tin shed which has been constructed by her. However, so far as boundary wall is concerned the respondent authorities especially the Collector, Raipur is directed to consider her application for grant of lease (patta) of the said land and if any lease (patta) can be granted to the petitioner the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

6. Till the decision of the application for grant of lease (patta) the boundary wall of the petitioner may not be removed.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not made any opinion on merits of the case, it is to the concerned Collector to pass appropriate order in this respect.

8. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

5. (i) Learned counsel for the appellants/ Municipal Corporation would submit that the writ petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authorities wherein they were trying to remove the illegal construction that has been raised by the petitioner encroaching upon the government land. He further submits that upon receipt of a complaint against the petitioner and another person namely Shri Ravi Sahu, alleging obstruction of public pathway through unauthorized construction and possession over the public road, the respondent Corporation in the writ petition conducted a site inspection at the location situated near Kota Koteshwar Mandir, Shaheed Manmohan Singh Bakshi Ward No. 23 and during the said inspection, it was found that both the petitioner and Shri Ravi Sahu had raised an unauthorized tin-shed structure encroaching upon the public road.

(ii) Learned counsel further submits that the Corporation ordered a demarcation of the subject land, which was accordingly carried out by the Revenue Inspector, Kota, and the Halka Patwari, Kota, on 27.10.2021. As per the report, the petitioner specifically made a shed, beyond the limits of the sanctioned building plan, thereby encroaching upon the public road without due permission or authority. He would further submit that the respondent Corporation is fully empowered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 to undertake such removal in accordance with due process of law. It is submitted that the petitioner, in reply to the notices issued to her, has admitted to having encroached upon land beyond the sanctioned limits of her plot area.

(iii) It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not submitted any application for regularizatio