NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 1699 of 2015

1. Vikrant Singh S/o Ranvijay Singh, Aged About 24 Years R/o Deepak Nagar, Street

No. 6, Ward No. 23, Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg. (Chhattisgarh)

2. Roma Singh, D/o. Ranvijay Singh, Aged About 26 Years R/o Deepak Nagar, Street

No. 6, Ward No. 23, Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg. (Chhattisgarh)

3. Indu Singh, Wd/o Ranvijay Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Deepak Nagar, Street

No. 6, Ward No. 23, Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg. (Chhattisgarh)

4. Rishu Singh, D/o. Ranvijay Singh, Aged About 27 Years R/o Deepak Nagar, Street

No. 6, Ward No. 23, Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg. (Chhattisgarh)

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Mandir

Hasoud, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur . (Chhattisgarh)

2. Municipal Corporation, Durg Through Commissioner, G. E. Road, Durg

(Chhattisgarh)

3. Joint Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, G.E.Road, Durg, Dist. Durg (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondents

Shri Pallav Mishra, counsel for the petitioner/s.

Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Dy.G.A. for the State.

Shri Satish Gupta, counsel for Municipal Corporation.

Order On Board

21/09/2015

By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner

has prayed for quashing impugned notice dated 14/08/14 as also for grant of

permission to construct shops on the first floor of the residential premises on the

terms and conditions on which such permission was allegedly granted to one

Mr.Sanjay Singh.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent / authorities

are acting discriminately in as much as in the case of one Sanjay Singh, who

resides in the same area and ward, he was granted permission to construct shops

on the first floor of the building for which, earlier, building permission was granted for

residential purpose but when father of the petitioner applied for construction of

shops on the first floor of the residential building, the same was illegally rejected

vide order dated 21/02/11.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that when later on,

father of the petitioner raised grievance that in similar case, permission was granted

vide memo dated 26/05/11 (Annexure P/8), the Joint Director, Nagar Tatha Gram

Nivesh, Durg informed to the Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Durg that

permission for construction for commercial purposes can be granted after due

examination of the case and other conditions. Later on, when permission was not

being granted and the father of the petitioners apprehended demolition, he filed

petition WP(C) No.4950/11 which was eventually dismissed as withdrawn on

27/02/12 with liberty to file fresh petition after challenging the order of rejection.

Later on, father of the petitioners died. Petitioners received notice of the

Corporation for submitting mutation orders in their favour. The petitioners have

submitted all the relevant documents but again impugned order has been issued on

14/08/15 for removal of construction already made by the petitioners / their father.

3.

The application earlier filed by the father of the petitioner for grant of

permission to construct shops / commercial purpose in the residential building was

rejected by the Corporation on 21/02/11 (Annexure P/6). It appears that later on,

vide communication dated 26/05/11 (Annexure P/8), the Joint Director, Town and

Country Planning informed the Corporation that in limited cases, permission could

be granted. However, it appears that before Corporation could grant any

permission, certain construction was already raised in respect of which, repeated

notices were given to the father of the petitioner to remove construction. A writ

petition was filed by the father of the petitioners which was dismissed as withdrawn

with liberty to challenge the order of rejection. Even though that order was pa