[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
