[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sunita Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13521
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1275 of 2026
Sunita Sahu W/o Late Shri Vinod Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.11,
Laxan Ban Talab New Colony, Ratakhar Korba District- Korba (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Urban And Rural
Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh,
2 - The Korba Municpal Corporation Through- Commissioner Korba Muncipla
Corporation Saket Bhawan Iti Chowk Korba District- Korba (C.G.)
3 - The Commissioner Korba Muncipla Corporation Saket Bhawan Iti Chowk Korba
District- Korba (C.G.)
4 - The Building Officer Building Administration Branch Korba Muncipla Corporation
Saket Bhawan Iti Chowk Korba District- Korba (C.G.)
... Respondents
{Cause title, as taken from CIS}
For Petitioner : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate.
For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General.
For Resp. No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate.
{Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi}
Order on Board
20/03/2026
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-
"In view of the facts and grounds stated hereinabove, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to :
10.1 Quash and set aside the impugned notices dated
29.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 as well as the impugned order
dated 26.02.2026 issued by the respondent authorities;
10.2 Declare the action of the respondents in demolishing the
petitioner' property on 16.03.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional;
10.3 Direct the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for compounding / regularization of the alleged
construction under Section 308-A and 308-B of the Chhattisgarh
Municipal Corporation Act, 1956;
10.4 Direct the respondents to pay adequate compensation to
the petitioner for the illegal and arbitrary demolition of her
property, including the loss of structure, business, and mental
agony sufferred by her, as may be determined by this Hon'ble
Court;
10.5 Grant any other relief, including costs of the petition,
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that late Vinod Sahu
(wife of petitioner) & Mukesh Sahu had jointly purchased the land bearing Khasra
No. 15003/7, area 0.1210 hectares (for brevity, 'subject land') situated at Mouza
Korba, Halka No. 15, Tehsil & District Korba (C.G.). Respondent No. 4 served a
notice (Annexure P-1) dated 29.01.2026 on the husband of the petitioner regarding
the alleged unauthorised construction, directing him to submit a reply. Again similar
notice was served to the petitioner herself on 17.2.2026, which was replied by the
petitioner stating therein that her husband has expired on 13.11.2025, hence, she
has filed an application for mutation, but without considering reply filed by the
petitioner, impugned order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-2) was passed by
respondent No. 4 granting three days' time to the petitioner to remove alleged
unauthorized construction. Thereafter, on 16.3.2026, half of the factory of the
petitioner was demolished and, thus. the respondents/Municipal Corporation, Korba
caused a loss of Rs. 20,00,000 to the petitioner. It is next contended that if there
would have any unauthorized construction, then the petitioner may be granted time
for compounding alleged unauthorized construction, but without providing such an
opportunity structures of premises of petitioner was demolished, hence, learned
counsel submits that this petition may be admitted for hearing.
3. In reply, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 would submit that
husband of petitioner namely Vinod Sahu, and one Mukesh Sahu were joint owner
of 'subject land' and this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in WPC No.
1228 of 2026 permitted the petitioners therein namely, Mukesh Sahu & his wife
Rakhi Sahu to withdraw the same with liberty to file appeal before Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Korba, therefore, this petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable, as the impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 26.02.2026 is appelable
under Section 403 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. He further submits that
structure, which has been demolished was 'boundary wall' and 'tin shed' was very
low worth. He further submits that if petitioner wants compensation in lieu of
aforesaid demolition, then she may file civil suit, as determination of amount of
compensation is pure question of fact, which can be decided after recording
evidence. Hence, on this count also, this petition is not maintainable.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. As per pleading made in the petition and documents annexed with the writ
petition, late Vinod Sahu (husband of petitioner) and Mukesh Sahu are joint owner
of subject land bearing Khasra No. 15003/7, area 0.1210 hectares. Mukesh Sahu &
his wife - Rakhi Sahu had filed petition bearing WPC No. 1228 of 2026, which was
permitted to withdraw by them by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026, as they
wanted to file appeal challenging the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure
P-2) passed by Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Korba before
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba under Section 403 of the Act, 1956 .
6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain instant petition,
as there is alternative efficacious remedy is available to her to challenge the
impugned order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-2) by filing appeal under Section
403 of the Act, 1956 before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba.
Further, determination of amount of compensation is completely question of fact,
which can be decided after recording evidence and it is settled law that Writ Court
ought not have interfered with regard to disputed question of fact, such issue can be
decided by competent civil Court, therefore, it petitioner wants compensation, then
she may file civil suit against respondents authorities.
7. In view of overall discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain instant
petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, hence, this petition stands
disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate efficacious remedy
under the law.
8. In the meantime, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against
the petitioner for a period of 30 days from today. In between, the petitioner may avail
appropriate remedy under the law.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
AMIT
by AMIT
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
Judge
DUBEY 2026.03.25
14:51:25 +0530
