Chattisgarh High Court
Vishal Khandelwal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
1/8
2026:CGHC:12100
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 82 of 2026
1 - Vishal Khandelwal S/o Omprakash Khandelwal Aged About 35 Years R/o
Satkar Hotel Gali, Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir, Ward No. 14,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Juhi Khadelwal W/o Vishal Khandelwal Aged About 36 Years R/o
Satkar Hotel Gali, Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir, Ward No. 14,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And
Development Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Joint Director Town And Country Planning, R D A Building, Shastri Chowk,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5 - Zone Commissioner Zone-2, Municipal Corporation, Near Shahid Smarak
School, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6 - Sourabh Gupta S/o Shri Ram Sahodar Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o
2/8
Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir, Ward No. 14, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
7 - Mukesh Khandelwal S/o Shri Ashok Khandelwal Aged About 38 Years R/o
Station Road, Narmadapara, Raman Mandir, Ward No. 14, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assised by Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondent no. 1-4 : Mrs. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent no. 3 and 5 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent no. 6 and 7 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13.03.2026
1. Petitioners have filed this review petition seeking review of order dated 07.12.2025 passed in writ petition bearing WPC No. 6419 of 2025 filed by respondent no. 6 and 7 herein in this review petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that order subject matter of review dated 17.12.2025 passed in WPC No. 6419 of 2025 has been passed without any notice. He submits that taking undue advantage of observation made by this Court the Municipal Corporation has started demolition of building constructed by petitioners herein. The action on the part of respondents of demolition which is subject matter of this review is without providing any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order be reviewed accordingly. He further submits that counsel representing Municipal Corporation in WPC No. 6419 of 2025 stated that petitioners herein have filed an appeal under Section 403 which got dismissed was not correct, whereas the appeal preferred before 3/8 Mayor in Counsil is pending even today. During course of argument today also, counsel representing Corporation has made submission that the appeal preferred before Appeal Committee Mayor-in-Counsil is pending, therefore, the order subject matter of writ petition be reviewed. He also submits that earlier the area in which petitioners have constructed the building was a residential area in the master plan of Corporation. However, subsequently, vide notification dated 09.11.2022 the said area has been declared to be commercial area (bearing Khasra No. 497). If for any reason the building is not constructed according to the sanctioned map then petitioners are having a remedy to file appropriate application for regularization of the construction, to which appropriate application is made before the appropriate authority which is also still pending consideration.
3. Learned counsel for Municipal Corporation would submit that petitioners herein were given multiple notices under Section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and last notice i.e. the final notice was issued on 20.03.2023. Referring to notice which is subject matter of writ petition bearing WPC No. 6419 of 2025 it is pointed out that the first notice was issued on 18.10.2021, and thereafter the third notice was issued on 7.02.2023 as it is mentioned in the notice (final notice). Petitioners are having the remedy available against the notices issued by Corporation under Section 307(5), however, the petitioners have not filed any proceedings/appeal as provided under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956. As there is no order on the notice (final notice) Annexuer P-4 in writ petition dated 20.03.2023 the Corporation has taken the decision to demolish the unauthorized construction. He however, submits that due to inadvertent mistake he has made submission with 4/8 regard to filing of appeal under Section 403 of the Act of 1956 at the time of disposal of writ petition. He lastly submits that remedy of appeal available to petitioners against the notices dated 20.03.2023 would be under the provisions of Section 307(5) and not under Section 403 of the Act of 1956.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and 7 would submit that the grounds raised/pleadings made in the review application is not the ground sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of review. He further submits that this Court has made observation in para no. 5 in the said writ petition that directing Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law within specified time frame, if there is no other impediment, giving proper notice to respondent no. 6 and 7.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents which are referred by both the sides filed in the writ petition bearing WPS No. 6419 of 2025.
6. Copy of notice is filed as Annexuer P-4 along with the writ petition.
Perusal of notice would show that earlier to the final notice issued to petitioners herein on 20.03.2023, three other notices were issued. First was issued on 18.10.2021, second was issued on 11.11.2021 and third was issued on 07.02.2022. The contents of final notice would show that, intimation given to noticee therein stating that portion of the construction made by them was illegal and were directed to remove it by seven days or else without there being any additional notice, the Municipal Corporation will remove the same. In the notice, description of construction which is stated to be illegal, have been specifically mentioned.
5/8
7. Admittedly, Section 307 of the Act of 1956 provides for power to require/removal or alteration of work not in conformity with bye- laws. Section 307(2) provides for if a building is erected or re-erected without any sanction as required by Section 293 or when sanction has been refused or in contravention of terms of any Section granted or when sanction has lapsed under Section 300, the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under Section 294, shall by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorized by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down.
8. The notice which is filed along with writ petition prima facie appears to have been issued under the provisions of Section 307. The Section 307(5) provides for submitting an application/appeal before District Court for the injunction for removal or alteration of any building.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case as admitted by counsel for the parties no proceedings are filed before the District Judge.
10. At this stage,learned counsel for petitioners herein would submit that in writ petition filed by petitioners herein bearing WPC No. 235 of 2025 it is the Corporation which has stated that petitioners are having a remedy under Section 403, therefore they have filed an appeal under the same section.
6/8
11. Be that as it may. This is a petition filed seeking review of order passed in writ petition wherein this Court without entering into the merits of the claim of petitioners has disposed of by observing as under:-
"5. On due consideration of submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and further considering that subject matter of writ petition is with regard to unauthorized construction raised by respondent no. 6 and 7 and further against the action taken by corporation the appeal under Section 403 of the Act of 1956 filed by respondent no. 6 and 7 also came to be dismissed and further last notice is stated to be issued by corporation on 10.11.2025 and further considering that more than one month has already passed after issuance of last notice, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law to remove unauthorized construction within a period of 01 month if there is no other impediment, giving proper notice to respondent no. 6 and 7."
12. Even if the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners and fairly admitted by Corporation that the appeal filed under Section 403 on the date of passing of order was not disposed of or rejected, however, the fact remains that this Court has only made observation while disposing of the writ petition directing the Corporation to take decision in accordance with law to remove unauthorized constructions and further made an observation that 'if there is no other impediment' giving appropriate notice to respondent no. 6 and 7. This observation was made considering that notice under Section 307 was issued to petitioners herein and that is final notice for removing construction. Petitioners were having remedy to approach appropriate authority by filing of an appropriate application/proceedings under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956, which they have not filed.
13. The scope of review is very limited, jurisdiction of review can be exercised only when it is demonstrated and cannot comes to conclusion that there is error apparent on the face of record. In the 7/8 facts of the case, where the notice under Section 307 for removing the construction is not been challenged, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the order by issuing an order to Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 has observed that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
15. In case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumal reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "an error which has to be established by long run process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of record.
16. In the case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus:
"18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case."
17. The review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment and substitute a different view merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts.
8/8
18. For the forgoing discussion and in particular considering the fact that this Court while passing the order in writ petition has only issued a direction to the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law to remove unauthorized construction within the period of one month, if there is no other impediment and further considering that the notice issued by Corporation under Section 307 (final notice) for removing the unauthorized construction is dated 20.03.2023, I do not find any good ground to allow this review petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
19. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners would submits that even the notice has not been issued for taking action against the petitioners herein, as observed by this Court.
20. Learned counsel for Corporation is given short time to seek instructions, telephonically as to whether notice as observed by this Court was issued by respondents or not. After taking due instructions from the concerned authority, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that according to his instructions as obtained from the Zone Commissioner as also from the Ground Planner no notice is issued to petitioners after the order of this Court, and therefore, if any action is to be taken against the petitioners herein it will be only after issuance of notice.
Certified copy as per rules. sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Digitally
signed by
ALFIZA
ALFIZA BAIG
BAIG Date:
Judge
2026.03.18
17:59:34
+0530
Alfiza