### Liberty to seek compounding under Section 308A of Municipal Corporation Act bars immediate demolition of unauthorized structures.

The Petitioner purchased land in District Raipur via a registered sale deed on 08.11.2024.

Subsequently, the Petitioner commenced construction of a multipurpose hall and boundary wall.

The Respondent-Municipal Corporation demolished the boundary wall and portions of the superstructure, alleging the construction lacked valid permission.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the demolition notices and orders, and to seek restoration or compensation for the demolished property.

During proceedings, the Petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the petition to file for compounding of the unauthorized construction.

1. Whether the Petitioner can be granted liberty to apply for compounding of unauthorized construction under the relevant municipal statutes after demolition has commenced?

2. Whether the court should grant interim protection (status quo) pending the decision on the compounding application?

The Court applied Section 308A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which provides for the compounding of offenses related to construction carried out without requisite permission.

This provision allows the Municipal Commissioner to regularize certain deviations or unauthorized structures upon payment of prescribed fees, provided the construction meets specific criteria under the law.

The Petitioner’s counsel argued that while some structures were demolished without following due process, remaining structures still stand, and the Petitioner is willing to seek regularization.

The Respondent submitted that previous applications by the Petitioner were rejected because they were filed post-facto for "permission" rather than "compounding".

The Court observed that since the Petitioner expressed a willingness to invoke the statutory remedy of compounding under Section 308A of the Act of 1956, it was appropriate to allow the administrative authority to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law.

To prevent further irreversible action during this administrative process, the Court determined that a temporary status quo was necessary until the application is decided.

Respondent No. 4 (Commissioner, Raipur Municipal Corporation) was directed to decide the application on its merits within 30 days of receipt.

Crucially, the Court ordered that status quo regarding the subject land be maintained by both parties until the application is decided, providing interim protection to the Petitioner.

No orders as to costs were made.