Bharat Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 631 of 2020 Bharat Rajput S/o Shri K.B. Rajput Aged About 47 Years, Resident of HIG7, Arya Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Vikas Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Zone Commissioner Zone No. 2, Tifra, Municipal Corporation, Tifra Zone No. 2, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

6. The Tahsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

7. Suchitra Verma W/o Late Vinod Verma Aged About 46 Years

8. Dinesh Kumar Verma Working As Patwari, Aged About 42 Years Respondents No.7&8 Resident of Babji Nagar (Tifra), Police Station - Sirgatti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondents 3&4 Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate along with Ms.

Richa Dwivedi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18.02.2020 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is in respect of illegal construction being made by the respondents No.7 & 8 over the house No.S-36, measuring 1800-2000 sq.ft. Situated at Babji Nagar, Tifra. 2.

According to the petitioner, by way of said illegal construction, the respondents No.7&8 have violated all the provisions relating to construction of a building is concerned, inasmuch as, no prior approval or permission was obtained from the Municipal authorities, nor is the construction in accordance with the provisions of law. According to the petitioner, he has already made various complaints against the

-2respondents No.7&8 before the respondent authorities particularly the respondents No.3 &4, but till date no decision has been taken by the authorities and the respondents are continuing with the illegal construction.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3&4 submits that since the complaints of the petitioner is lying undecided, the respondents No.3&4 shall take an early decision on the complaint so made. 4.

Given the said submissions of learned counsel for the respondents No.3&4, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondents No.3&4 are directed to take a decision on the complaint so made by the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is expected that the respondents would take a decision keeping in view the provisions of law governing the construction in the particular area. 5.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder