Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2026:CGHC:11842 DADDKooCscD1 t= u= 0 J U H i WN a = gA = : It H M 3 H : C i Ne IY t H V 3 I c : a Ah A G K : nE I 2 l h 1 T RG l H = UD 0 y a 3 T H 2 A t D MI I s C t +6 S J i i WC gA O A s .0 G 0 g n O R YI U 5 A 3 V a e 3 URR . r d E 10 h RTH D 3 b , T ,O I y ,, F
WPC No. 1061 of 2026
Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Rajkishore Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 577, Gali No. R-1, Vinoba Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District-Bilaspur (C.G.), Mo. No. 9827180765 ... Petitioner.
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Building Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Zone Commissioner, Zone No.4, Nehru Complex, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)... Respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
For Res No.1 & 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
For Res No.3 : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG.
Ajay
12/03/2026
Sd/-
Judge
Ajay
(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
Order on Board
12/03/2026
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the followings reliefs:-
entire records of the case, from the authorities.the order dated 03.03.2026 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-P/1), is in the interest of justice.10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is reconstructing boundary wall on his own land after getting permission from the Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, but only because some nearby residents have raised objection, construction of boundary wall has been stopped by respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 03.03.2026 which is not justifiable.
3. In reply to above, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 as well as State submit that petitioner is encroaching said boundary wall in public area, therefore, said impugned order has been passed. However, they opined that in order to resolve the dispute the demarcation of subject land is required.
4. Learned State counsel assured that demarcation of subject land of the petitioner shall be carried out and thereafter if it is found that said construction is within land of the petitioner, then appropriate direction/order will be passed by the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated no objection to the aforesaid submission.directing learned State to inform concerned Authority to get demarcation ofthe subject land within a period of 30 days from today. Thereafter, respondents No.2 and 3 shall pass appropriate order expeditiously, in accordance with rules/law.
