(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition being aggrieved by the notice dated 17.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the construction work over the petitioner’s property has been stayed, as well as by the notices dated 16.02.2025 and 02.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 6, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged illegal construction within 15 days. The copy of the notice dated 17.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/1, and the notices dated 16.02.2025 and 02.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 6 are annexed herewith as Annexure P/2 (colly). By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the whole record of the unregistered case bearing name Saurabh Chandrakar Vs. Smt. P. Dhanlaxmi, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 17.12.2025 issued by respondent no. 4, in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notices dated 16.02.2025 & 02.04.2026 issued by respondent no. 6, in the interest of justice.

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly please to direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the complaint dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure-P/10) within stipulated time period.

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner and in settled possession of the property bearing Khasra No. part of 151/9, admeasuring about 1000 sq. ft., situated at Amlidih, P.H.N. 69/70, R.N.M. Raipur 11, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.), over which a residential house admeasuring about 800 sq. ft. has already been constructed. It is submitted that the petitioner had purchased the said property along with the existing construction from one Iyrin Faya, W/o Michael Faya, through a registered sale deed dated 22.03.2016 and has been in peaceful possession since then.

3. It is further submitted that while renovation work was being carried out over the said property, the petitioner was suddenly served with the impugned notice dated 17.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the construction activity was stayed. It is contended that the said notice was issued without initiation of any proper revenue proceeding, without supplying copy of the complaint, and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that subsequently, respondent No. 6 issued notices dated 16.02.2025 and 02.04.2026 directing demolition/removal of alleged illegal construction, which are also wholly mechanical, non-speaking and without any prior statutory notice or proper consideration of the petitioner’s reply. Accordingly, it is submitted that all the impugned actions are arbitrary, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that the case of the petitioner shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that the notices impugned in the present writ petition have been issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the applicable Municipal Act, after receiving complaints regarding alleged unauthorized construction being carried out by the petitioner. It is contended that the action taken by the respondents is only at the stage of verification and prevention of illegal construction, and no final adjudication of title or rights over the property has been made.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been afforded adequate opportunity to submit her reply and participate in the