RAVINDRA KINGRANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have preferred these writ petitions as the Municipal Corporation has served notice on each one of them under Sec. 307 (3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956') for removal of unauthorized construction, failing which the corporation shall demolish the construction.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have raised the construction on their own lands. There may be some deviation in internal structure or arrangement but the building laws have not been violated. It is also argued that recently the State Government has taken a policy decision to regularize the unauthorized construction, under which the petitioners' unauthorized construction, if any, is likely to be covered, therefore, any demolition of the property belonging to the petitioners would cause irreparable loss.

(3.) Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, appearing on advance notice, would submit that the petitioners have rushed to this Court without making any representation before the Municipal Corporation. He would also submit that they have alternative remedy of moving before the District Judge Under Sec. 307 (5) of the Act, 1956.