A party's inability to produce documents due to police seizure can influence the timeline for compliance with municipal regulations.

Order on Board

30/07/2025

1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the show-cause notice dated 25/07/2025 issued under under Section 307 (2)(A) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 on the ground that the petitioner has constructed the house without obtaining necessary permission and it also purports that if the satisfactory reply has not been submitted by the petitioner till 31/07/2025 along with all the requisite documents, ex-parte demolition action will be initiated against the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the joint owner along with her husband of house No.685/4, admeasuring 558.15 sq. m., situated at Bhatagaon, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward No.61, Raipur and they have constructed the said house after obtaining a loan to the tune of Rs.1.00 Crores from the Punjab National Bank and the said construction has been done with approved layout and sanctioned building map.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to a police raid conducted by the Police Station Telibandha in relation to Crime No.332/25 on 04.06.2025, all original documents and permissions related to the construction and ownership of the house were seized; a Panchnama was also prepared; and the house has been sealed and the petitioner has been restrained from the access of the said house. Thus, the documents sought by the Municipal Corporation are presently in police custody, therefore, the documents as demanded by the Corporation, the petitioner is not in a position to produce the same because of which the threat looms large regarding demolition of the house of the petitioner.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply dated 28/07/2025 to the impugned show cause notice, explaining her inability to produce the documents and permissions owing to their seizure by the police and she further requested that either the said documents be returned to her or necessary directions be issued to the concerned police authorities to supply the same, however, nothing has been done on her request.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 to 4 would contend that the petitioner has constructed a swimming pool on the fourth floor of the building of the petitioner which is in violation of the rules.

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

7. Perused the Panchnama dated 04/06/2025 (Annexure P/2) para 8 of which purports that “tksu deh’uj tksu d0z 06 uxj ikfyd fuxe jk;ijq ds }kjk tkjh Hkou fuekZ.k vuqKk izdj.k iath;u dz 782 fnukad 11-03-16 vuqKk dz 316 fnukad 22-03-16 vuqKk /kkjd Jh fojsUnz flag rksej firk Lo Jh vkse idz k’k rksej o Jhefr lqczk flag rksej ifr Jh fojsUnz flag rksej [kljk ua0 685@4 iVokjh gYdk u 105@60 okMZ u0 63 HkkVkxko dk nLrkost Nk;kizfr 18 iUukA”

8. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties especially the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the original documents pertaining to the permission of the construction of the house has been seized, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an application before the concerned Municipal Corporation for obtaining the documents regarding the permission for construction of the house of the petitioner within a period of 10 days from today and the same shall be provided to the petitioner after depositing the requisite fees by the petitioner and after receiving the same he shall file a detailed reply to the Respondents No.2 to 4 within a period of 15 days and on such reply being filed, the said Respondents No.2 to 4 shall verify the documents as stated above in his office documents and thereafter after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the said respondent authorities shall pass