Chief Municipal Officer must decide the pending construction grievance within 30 days.

Petitioner No. 1 claimed ownership of land at Ward No. 11, Balod, and petitioner No. 2 was her son and power-of-attorney holder.

The municipal authority had granted petitioner No. 1 permission to construct a boundary wall on the land.

The petitioners alleged that private respondents 4 and 5 entered the land and began construction without valid documents or permission.

Following complaints, the Chief Municipal Officer issued notices directing them to stop construction and produce relevant documents, but the petitioners alleged that no effective action followed.

They sought directions for the municipal authority to proceed under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1961.

The State submitted that proceedings had already been initiated and that the petitioners could apply to the authority.

1. Whether the Chief Municipal Officer should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ grievance concerning the alleged unauthorised construction

2. Whether the Court should direct the municipal authority to take action within the seven-day period sought by the petitioners

The Court referred to the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1961, under which the petitioners sought municipal action, but did not identify or interpret any specific provision of the Act.

The operative principle was that the competent municipal authority, having taken cognizance of the complaint and issued notices, should consider and decide the grievance in accordance with law, without the High Court expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Chief Municipal Officer had already acted on the complaints by issuing notices to respondents 4 and 5, but the petitioners’ grievance remained unresolved.

In light of those pending municipal proceedings, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the authority to decide the matter rather than determine the disputed allegations or order the specific action sought by the petitioners.

The direction preserved the authority’s responsibility to decide the grievance in accordance with law and left the merits open.

It did not grant the requested seven-day deadline; the writ petition was disposed of with the stated direction.