Disposed¶45

Harish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Aug 2025WPC/2707/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

deemed permission; Section 30(5); Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973; 60 days; automatic grant of permission; building plan approval delay; Municipal Corporation Bilaspur; demolition notice; Section 307(2) Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act 1956; unauthorized construction; parking area deviation; regularization; WPC No. 1869/2024; MCC No. 298/2024; Raipur Development Authority (2000) 4 SCC 357; arbitrary inaction; fresh decision; writ petition disposed; Chhattisgarh Bhumi Vikas Rules 1984; Proposal No. 11361; Khasra No. 1081/7 Sarkanda Bilaspur.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent/authority to take a fresh decision as per law, in view of the law laid down in Raipur Development Authority (supra); writ petition disposed of. ¶45

Harish Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondent/authority to take a fresh decision as per law, in view of the law laid down in Raipur Development Authority (supra); writ petition disposed of.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' failure to consider and decide the petitioners' revised construction plan dated 07.06.2024 within 60 days attracts deemed permission under Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, rendering the authorities' belated remarks arbitrary.

¶40

Court's answer

As per Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (as amended), if the Director of Town and Country Planning fails to communicate a decision on a permission application within 60 days of receiving it, permission is considered automatically granted on the day following the 60-days period, excluding any time the Director requisitioned further information or documents from the applicant.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

It being an admitted fact that the fresh proposal was submitted on 07.06.2024 and the Municipal Corporation neither raised any objection nor sought any documents within 60 days, reacting only after a lapse of 6 months and 17 days with remarks, the respondent authorities' conduct was arbitrary as per the provisions of Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973.

¶40

Key takeaways

This Court relied on Raipur Development Authority v. Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti and Others, (2000) 4 SCC 357, wherein the Apex Court has recognized and upheld the principle of deemed permission in similar legislative contexts.ratio¶44
In view of the above and the law laid down in Raipur Development Authority (supra), the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authority to take a fresh decision as per law.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPC No. 2707 of 2025, decided 20/08/2025 by Arvind Kumar Verma, J. Four petitioners, purchasers/lessees of Khasra No. 1081/7 (2377 sq. ft.), Sarkanda, Bilaspur, challenged the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur's inaction in deciding their revised building plan submitted on 07.06.2024 (Proposal No. 11361), filed after demolition of an unauthorized parking-area deviation pursuant to a demolition notice dated 28.03.2024 and this Court's order dated 30.03.2024 in WPC No. 1869/2024 granting three weeks for removal/alteration. Held (single Judge): under Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, failure to communicate a decision on a permission application within 60 days results in permission being automatically granted the day after the 60-day period (excluding requisition time); the Corporation neither objected nor sought documents within 60 days and reacted only after 6 months and 17 days, which was arbitrary. Reliance placed on Raipur Development Authority v. Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti, (2000) 4 SCC 357 (deemed-permission principle upheld in a similar legislative context). Petition disposed of with a direction to the authority to take a fresh decision as per law; no amount awarded.

2025:CGHC:42158

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2707 of 2025

¶6

1 - Harish Rathore S/o Maliram Rathore Aged About 66 Years R/o Jabdapara, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Rajeev Kashyap S/o Late R.L. Kashyap Aged About 55 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, P.S.-Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Sibudas Vishwas S/o Kanhaiyalal Vishwas Aged About 73 Years R/o Near State Bank, Bijuri, District - Anuppur (M.P.)

¶9

4 - Sharda Dewangan W/o Laxman Dewangan Aged About 42 Years, R/o H-2-35 Government Quarter, Near Shiv Mandir, Durg District -Durg Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, And Urban Development Mahanadi Administration Bhawan Department, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Bilaspur Municipal District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - The Zone Commissioner, Zone No.7, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶15

¶16

4 - The Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Vikas Bhawan Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶17

5 - The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶18

6 - The Director, Town And Country Planning, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Shri Anurag Tripathi,PL
For Respondents No. 2 to 4	Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate on behalf of
	Shri R.S.Marhas, Advocate

¶21

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

20/08/2025

¶24

The present petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the respondents in considering and deciding the petitioners’ revised construction plan dated 07.06.2024 filed before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the lessee of land bearing Khasra No. 1081/7 admeasuring 2377 sq. ft. situated near Nootan Enclave, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, CG and the petitioner No.1 was granted permanent lease deed on 18.01.2023. The petitioner was also granted a possession certificate in respect of the said land. The petitioners No. 2 to 4 have purchased the land from the petitioner No.1 after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation and at that

¶26

¶27

time there was no objection from the Municipal Corporation. Pursuant to the execution of the lease deed, the petitioner submitted an application for approval of plan under the Chhattisgarh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 before the respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur sanctioned the construction plan on 24.02.2023 and during the course of construction, due to site specific constraints, a deviation occurred in the parking area and the petitioner promptly applied for regularization on 12.08.2023. However, without disposing of the said application or granting any opportunity of hearing, the Municipal Corporation issued a demolition notice dated 28.03.2024 which was challenged by the petitioner No.1 before this Court and vide order dated 30.03.2024, three weeks’ time was granted to the remove the disputed portion and the respondents were directed not to take coercive action during the said period. Pursuant thereto, the unauthorized portion was duly demolished by the respondents. After demolition, the petitioner with an attempt to undertake construction as per law, submitted a fresh building plan on 07.06.2024 under Proposal No. 11361 along with the requisite fees. Despite lapse of several months and repeated representations dated 6.12.2024 and 08.01.2025, to the respondent/Commissioner, his proposal is kept pending. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioners.

¶28

Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that without disposing of the application, a notice under Section 307(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was issued on 15.03.2024 alleging unauthorized construction. The petitioner filed a detailed reply

¶29

¶30

on 18.03.2024 stating that the deviation was only with respect to the parking area and the rest of the construction is in accordance with the sanction plan and the petitioner was ready to pay the regularization charges but without considering the reply or affording opportunity of hearing, the respondent No.4 issued a demolition notice dated 28.03.2024 after granting 24 hours to remove the unauthorized construction. The petitioner approached the Mayor on 29.03.2024 and submitted a representation requesting that the construction standing over Khasra No. 1081/7 may not be demolished. The Mayor orally directed the respondent No.4-Assistant Engineer, Zone No.4 not to proceed with the demolition of the petitioner’s structure but the structure was demolished. The petitioner approached this Court in WPC No. 1869/2024 and vide order dated 30.03.2024, this Court has held that

¶31

“as the petitioner is ready to remove/alter the illegal construction within a period fo 3 weeks, the petitioner at this juncture is disposed of and the petitioner is granted 3 weeks time to remove/alter the illegal construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned map. For the period of 3 weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner or building pursuant to the notice dated 28.03.2024.”

¶32

Thereafter, on 18.04.2024, the applicant /petitioner has filed MCC No. 298/2024 stating that he had sold 270 sq.ft. of the constructed shop and two more shops to other persons out of Survey No. 1081/7, admeasuring area 2377 sq. ft. situated at Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, Tehsil and District Bilaspur. But in the WPC No. 1869 of 2024, the petitioner had given an undertaking to remove the illegal construction with regard to the area of 123 sq. meter parking space within a period of

¶33

¶34

three weeks as well as the area of 2377 sq.ft. of the property was sold and therefore Municipal Corporation may be directed to ascertain the reserved parking space and then take action according to the undertaking given by him. This Court had granted two weeks time to the Municipal Corporation Bilaspur to complete the entire exercise.

¶35

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that thereafter the unauthorized construction was demolished by the Municipal Corporation Bilaspur. The petitioner in compliance of the applicable Municipal regulations and in bonafide pursuit of obtaining construction permission submitted a fresh proposal for construction of a commercial premise on his plot and the building map along with prescribed application fee was deposited before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur on 07.06.2024. He made representations dated 6.12.2024 and again on 08.01.2025 requesting for approval of the proposed construction plan but till date his representations have not been decided.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner has submitted the plan on 07.06.2024 to the Office of Municipal Corporation and there are certain shortcomings in the application which have not been corrected by the petitioner and the proposal is not in accordance with the norms. He further submits that the MP/CG Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was promulgated with a view to make provision for planning and development and use of land, to make better provision for the preparation of development plans and zoning plans with a view to ensure town planning schemes in proper manner and their execution is

¶37

¶38

made effective to constitute Town and Country Planning Authority for Proper implementation of town and country development plan, administration of special areas through special area development authority to make provision for the compulsory acquisition of land required for the purpose of the development plans. He further submits that there are several discrepancies in his application and he has not submitted those documents. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal under the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act and therefore, the petition is not maintainable and being sans merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶40

It is admitted fact that the petitioner has submitted fresh proposal for construction of a commercial premise on his plot before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur on 07.06.2024 but within 60 days, the Municipal Corporation neither raised any objection nor sought for any documents from the petitioner and only after a lapse of 6 months and 17 days, the respondent authorities directed the petitioner with a remark that B-1 submitted is on the Commissioner’s name and the land is not submitted, plan is not as per norms which is arbitrary as per the provisions of Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973. Because as per Section 30(5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, as amended,

¶41

it states that if the Director of Town and Country Planning fails to communicate a decision on a permission application within 60 days of

¶42

¶43

receiving it, permission is considered automatically granted on the day following the 60-days period. This period excludes any time the Director requisitioned further information or documents from the applicant.

¶44

Thus, looking to the relief sought for by the petitioner, as has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Raipur Development Authority Vs. Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti and Others, (2000) 4 SCC 357 wherein has recognized and upheld the principle of deemed permission in similar legislative contexts. In the above matter, it stated that: “Under sub-section (5) , if the Director does not communicate his decision either granting unconditionally or conditionally or refusing the permission then within 60 days from the date of receipt of such application, the permission would be deemed to have been granted….” In view of the above the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authority to take fresh decision as per law in view of the law laid down in the matter of Raipur Development Authority (supra).

¶45

10. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶48

suguna

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Inaction of the respondents in considering and deciding the petitioners' revised construction plan dated 07.06.2024 (Proposal No. 11361) filed before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur.¶24
Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.1 granted permanent lease deed on 18.01.2023 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1081/7 (2377 sq. ft.) near Nootan Enclave, Sarkanda, Bilaspur; possession certificate also granted in respect of the said land.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioners No. 2 to 4 purchased the land from petitioner No.1 after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation.¶25
Prior proceeding
Application for approval of plan under the Chhattisgarh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984; construction plan sanctioned by respondent No.2 (Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur) on 24.02.2023.¶27
Prior proceeding
During construction, due to site-specific constraints, a deviation occurred in the parking area; petitioner promptly applied for regularization on 12.08.2023.¶27
Prior proceeding
Without disposing of the regularization application or granting any opportunity of hearing, the Municipal Corporation issued a demolition notice dated 28.03.2024.¶27
Prior proceeding
Per counsel for the petitioners, a notice under Section 307(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was issued on 15.03.2024 alleging unauthorized construction.¶28
Prior proceeding
Detailed reply filed on 18.03.2024 stating the deviation was only with respect to the parking area and the rest of the construction accorded with the sanction plan; petitioner was ready to pay regularization charges.¶30
Prior proceeding
Without considering the reply or affording an opportunity of hearing, respondent No.4 issued a demolition notice dated 28.03.2024 granting 24 hours to remove the unauthorized construction.¶30
Prior proceeding
Representation to the Mayor on 29.03.2024 seeking that the construction over Khasra No. 1081/7 not be demolished; the Mayor orally directed respondent No.4 (Assistant Engineer, Zone No.4) not to proceed with the demolition, but the structure was demolished.¶30
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.1 approached this Court in WPC No. 1869/2024; vide order dated 30.03.2024 this Court recorded its direction.¶30
Prior proceeding
Order dated 30.03.2024 in WPC No. 1869/2024 disposed of the petition, granting three weeks to remove/alter the illegal construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned map, with no coercive action during that period pursuant to the notice dated 28.03.2024.¶31
Prior proceeding
MCC No. 298/2024 filed on 18.04.2024 disclosing that the petitioner had sold a 270 sq.ft. constructed shop and two more shops out of Survey No. 1081/7 (admeasuring 2377 sq. ft.).¶32
Prior proceeding
In WPC No. 1869 of 2024 the petitioner had undertaken to remove the illegal construction with regard to the 123 sq. meter parking space; this Court granted two weeks to Municipal Corporation Bilaspur to complete the entire exercise.¶34
Prior proceeding
Thereafter the unauthorized construction was demolished by the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur.¶35
Prior proceeding
Fresh proposal/building plan for construction of a commercial premises submitted on 07.06.2024 under Proposal No. 11361 along with the requisite/prescribed application fee deposited before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur.¶27
Prior proceeding
Representations dated 6.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 to the respondent/Commissioner requesting approval of the proposed construction plan remained undecided.¶35

Harish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India

Shri Suryabhan Paratap Singh Chandrakar Vs Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rakhi

Manoj Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nandini Jain Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Ajesh Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishwa Ratan Sinha Vs the State of Chhattisgarh