Municipal authorities must decide demolition notices on merits after hearing affected parties and considering their legal objections.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 4, who are brothers, were co-owners of unpartitioned land bearing Khasra No. 150 at Nawagaon, District Korba.

Respondent No. 4 allegedly raised construction over the joint land without partition or municipal building permission.

The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, subsequently directed the parties to seek partition of the property.

Meanwhile, the Municipal Council, Katghora issued notices to Respondent No. 4, including a final notice dated 20 April 2022 under Section 187 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, requiring removal of the alleged illegal construction within seven days.

The petitioner alleged that the Municipal Council failed to act on the notice despite repeated representations and therefore sought a writ directing its enforcement and disciplinary action against the Chief Municipal Officer.

During hearing, the petitioner confined his prayer to a direction requiring the Municipal Council to take the notice dated 20 April 2022 to its logical conclusion.

Whether the Municipal Council should be directed to decide and proceed with the notice dated 20 April 2022 against Respondent No. 4 in accordance with law.

Whether Respondent No. 4 was entitled to an opportunity to present factual and legal objections, including the contention that the dispute was essentially civil and related to partition of jointly owned property.

Section 187 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, was the statutory basis of the municipal notice concerning the alleged unauthorised construction.

The Court applied the principles of fair procedure and natural justice by requiring the competent authority to decide the notice on its own merits after affording the affected party a due opportunity of hearing and permitting the production of relevant documents.

The Court further recognised that parties aggrieved by proceedings under the notice may pursue appropriate representations or applications before the competent authority and that the affected party may raise all available factual and legal objections.

The Court did not adjudicate the parties’ competing claims regarding ownership, consent, partition, or the legality of the construction.

Since the petitioner limited his prayer to implementation of the municipal notice, the Court directed the concerned authority to determine the notice independently and in accordance with law.

In doing so, it balanced the petitioner’s request for municipal action with Respondent No. 4’s right to a fair hearing, particularly because the alleged construction concerned jointly held property and the respondent asserted that the dispute was essentially civil in nature.

The Court expressly left all factual and legal objections open and clarified that it had not formed any opinion on the merits.

The competent municipal authority was directed to decide the notice dated 20 April 2022 against Respondent No. 4 on its own merits and in accordance with law, after considering the underlying dispute and affording Respondent No. 4 a due opportunity of hearing and to place relevant documents on record.

The parties were left at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent authority, and Respondent No. 4 could raise the objection that the matter was essentially a civil dispute.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.