Municipal authorities must consider regularization and compounding applications for unauthorized construction in accordance with law.

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 11 June 2026 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur under Section 307(3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, directing him to remove alleged unauthorized construction, failing which statutory action would follow.

The petitioner admitted that certain construction had been raised beyond the sanctioned building permission but expressed willingness to seek regularization and deposit any amount assessed by the competent authority. He also stated that an application for regularization had been filed and was pending consideration.

The Municipal Corporation opposed the petition, contending that the construction was in excess of and contrary to the sanctioned building permission and that the pending regularization application did not create any right to continue the unauthorized construction or avoid statutory action.

Upon examining the record and photographs, the Court noted that windows had been opened on the side facing the adjoining premises of the petitioner’s neighbour.

The petitioner undertook to close the windows and plaster the wall.

Whether the notice dated 11 June 2026 issued under Section 307(3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act warranted interference by the High Court.

Whether the petitioner’s application for regularization or compounding was required to be considered by the Municipal Corporation before further action was taken against the alleged unauthorized construction.

Whether directions could be issued to enable the petitioner to close or remove the windows adjoining the neighbouring premises without obstruction.

The Court applied Section 307(3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, under which the Municipal Corporation may require removal of unauthorized construction or encroachment and take consequential statutory action for non-compliance.

It further applied the principle that an application for regularization or compounding must be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, but its mere filing does not automatically legalize unauthorized construction or confer immunity from statutory proceedings.

The Court also directed that the petitioner’s application for compounding, if filed, be considered in accordance with law and in a pragmatic manner.

The Court recognized that the Municipal Corporation had issued the impugned notice in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 307(3), and that the petitioner did not dispute having raised construction beyond the sanctioned permission.

However, considering the pending regularization application and the limited nature of the dispute reflected in the photographs—particularly the windows opening towards the neighbour’s premises—the Court adopted a practical course instead of adjudicating the regularization claim itself.

Since the petitioner undertook to close or remove the windows and plaster the wall, the Municipal Corporation was directed to consider the application in accordance with law and to issue appropriate directions protecting the petitioner from obstruction by the neighbour while carrying out the required work.

The Court also directed consideration of any compounding application on its merits.

The Municipal Corporation was directed to consider the petitioner’s regularization application in accordance with law.

If the petitioner closed or removed the windows adjoining the neighbouring premises, the Corporation was to pass appropriate orders and direct the concerned neighbour not to obstruct the petitioner in closing the windows or plastering the wall, subject to law.

Any application for compounding was also directed to be considered by the competent authority in a pragmatic manner.