[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sapna Phillip vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11378
RUKHSAR
BANO
Digitally signed by
RUKHSAR BANO NAFR
Date: 2026.03.11
11:07:14 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 993 of 2026
1 - Sapna Phillip W/o Philip Abraham Aged About 49 Years R/o 504, Mantri Tranquil
Apartment, Subramanyapura, Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Distt. Bengluru,
Karnataka, Through The Power Of Attorney Holder, Mr. Saju Sandeep Samuel S/o
Mr. Samuel John, Aged About 46 Years, R/o H. No. 36, Tendua Road, Hirapur,
Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director Directorate Of Town And Country Planning, Indiravati Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Joint Director Directorate Of Town And Country Planning, Indiravati Bhawan,
Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Commissioner Raipur Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Zone Commissioner Zone No. 08, Raipur Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Executive Engineer Zone No. 08, Raipur Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate
For State/Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Adv. General
For Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
10/03/2026
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to
quash the notice dated 01/05/2025 and 19/05/2025, in the
interest of justice.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to
quash order dated 24/12/2025 issued by the Zone
commissioner, in furtherance of justice.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other
appropriate writ directing the respondents to restore the
building of the petitioner or alternatively pay compensation
to tune loss valued by the registered architect amounting of
Rs. 20,50,000/- along-with interest.
10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper may also please be granted to the
petitioner, in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased
the subject land bearing Khasra Nos.228/186, 228/187 and 228/188,
admeasuring 0.1100, 0.0610 & 0.1040 hectares respectively, vide
registered sale deed dated 08.11.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner
started constructing a multipurpose hall and a boundary wall. While the
construction was underway, the respondent -Municipal Corporation,
without following due process of law, demolished the boundary wall and
some portion of the other superstructure. Despite that, some structures
are still standing on the said land. He further submits that the petitioner
may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file an
appropriate application under Section 308A of the Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as " Act of 1956)" before
the respondent-Municipal Corporation for compounding of the offence,
and respondent No.4 may be directed to decide the application filed by
the petitioner within a stipulated period.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 submits that
the petitioner, without obtaining due permission from the Municipal
Corporation, has raised superstructure and boundary wall on the
aforesaid land. He further submits that the petitioner, instead of filing an
application under Section 308A of the Act of 1956, filed an application
seeking permission to construct a boundary wall, that too after the
construction of the boundary wall had already completed; therefore, the
petitioner's application has been rejected. He further submits that if the
petitioner files an application under Section 308A of the Act of 1956,
the same shall be decided in accordance with law.
5. Having considered the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and the submissions made by learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.4 to 6, the present writ petition is disposed of at this
stage granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application
under Section 308A of the Act of 1956 before respondent No.4 for
compounding of the offence of construction of superstructure over the
aforesaid land without permission, within a period of 15 days from
today. In the eventuality of filing such application, respondent No.4 is
directed to decide the same within a further period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of application filed by petitioner, strictly in accordance
with law. Till then, status quo as it exists today in respect of the subject
land shall be maintained by both the parties till the next date of the
hearing.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No
order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Rukhsar
