Jitendra Kashyap vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 June, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Jitendra Kashyap vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 June, 2025

                                                                 1




                                                                                        2025:CGHC:22497
                                                                                                   NAFR

                                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                      WPC No. 2752 of 2025

                       Jitendra Kashyap S/o Late Rampal Kashyap Aged About 38 Years R/o Devan
                       Chal, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                         ... Petitioner(s)
                                                              versus
                     1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Urban And
                       Administration Of Local Bodies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
                       Chhattisgarh.
                     2. The Municipal Corporation Through The Commissioner Bilaspur, District
                       Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                     3. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
                       Chhattisgarh.
                     4. Bhawan      Adhikari,   Municipal    Corporation,   Bilaspur,   District   Bilaspur,
                       Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                    ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.
Siddharth Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,

Order on Board
03/06/2025
With the consent of the parties heard finally.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India against the order dated 29/30-05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by

respondent No. 4 by which the respondent No. 4 directed the petitioner to

remove illegal encroachment situated at survey No. 429 area 0.07 acres

Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:

2025.06.05
12:09:22
+0530
2

located at village Chantidih, Patwari halka No. 20, revenue circle and Tahsil

Bilaspur District Bilaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is rightful owner

and possession to the land khasra No. 429 area 0.34 acres situated at

Chantidih, Bilaspur but the respondent authority constructed road in the

above property of the petitioner. The petitioners has annexed document of

sale deed, Rin Pustika and demarcation report. He would further submit that

the petitioner made a representation before respondent No.2 on 21.04.2025

regarding grant of compensation for the acquisition of land bearing khasra

No.429 admeasuring 0.07 acres upon which the petitioner had constructed a

house and after acquisition of the said land, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur

constructed 80 feet wide road. He would further submit that the Municipal

Corporation can acquire the land of any person under the doctrine of

eminent domain but by compensating the owner of the land by following due

procedure and he has no objection about the progress of work for

construction of road. He would further submit that his only grievances is that

if there is construction on any part of the land of the petitioner, Municipal

corporation to compensate the petitioner as per the provisions of law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and submits

that removal of any illegal encroachment would be only after proper

ascertainment of the fact whether there is in fact any illegal encroachment or

not. He further submits that if any part of the land of the petitioner is acquired

by the Municipal Corporation then they will pay extra fair to the petitioner and

would pray for dismissal of the petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Considering the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the respondents that if any construction is made on the
3

petitioner’s land, the respondents shall demarcate the land of the petitioner

and thereafter pay compensation to the petitioner as per provision of law.

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed off and applications.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge

Santosh