BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT pETITION c. No.96?! 2011 Petitioner A§Ték Kumar Agrawal, aged about 47 years, s/o. Shri Ishwar Lal Agrawal, occupation - business (Grocery shop) Ward No.09, Nagar Palika Parishad — Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents L/state of Chhattisgarh, Through , Secretary, Deptt of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2./"'Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), 33/ Collector, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4M” Superintendent of Police, DiStt- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 Sub ‘ Divisional Officer (Rev.)‘ Division — Kharsia, DiStt. Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Tahsildar — Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh a (C.G.) 7: Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad — Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 8 Station House Officer, Police Station — Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (CG) M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE > CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 01. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As per cause title. 02. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As per cause tite. / l ® HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 7560 0f2011 WRIT PETITION (C) No. 7570 of2011 PETITIONER : Rakesh Kesharwam'. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION (C) No. 7573 of2011 > PETITIONER : Rupesh Singh. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION (C) No. 7574 of 2011 PETITIONER : Ashok Kumar Agrawal. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vivek Bhakta, Advocate for the respective petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1 to 6 and 8. Shri Sudeep Agawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 7/ Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia. O R D E R (Passed on 12’]; day ofDecember, 2011) 1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in these petitions, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the impugned notice dated 15.11.2011 {Annexure P/l to W.P(C) No. 7560: 7570 and 7574 of 2011} and 08.11.2011 {Annexure P/l to PETITIONER : Mahaveer Prasad. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. W.P(C) No. 7573 of 201 1} issued by the respondent No. 7, 1‘.e. Chief Municipal omcer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia, District Raigarh whereby the petitioners have been asked to remove their structure situated over the land in disputed, alleged to have been constructed illegally within a period of two days. It was further made clear that if the structure was not removed. the same shall be demolished with force. . Shri Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submits that the petitioners cannot be thrown out on the basis of the above notice as the petitioners have not been ah‘orded proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned notices may be quashed. . Shri Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7/Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia submits that no further demolition shall be done without ah‘ording the petitioners proper opportunity of hearing and considering their response to the notice. The petitioners shall be issued hesh notices granting reasonable time to respond to the notices and the petitioners may also tile response to the same. . On perusal ofthe impugted notices, it appears that the petitioners have not been atforded any opportunity of hearing to establish asto whether the alleged structures in dispute are authorized or unauthorized as the case ofthe petitioners are that they have been residing there for a long period, on proper authorization. . These petitions involve disputed question of facts in regard to the fact asto whether the construction over the dispute land are authorized or unauthorized. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction cannot decide the above stated disputed facts on the basis of averments made in the pleadings. Granting one day time to remove the alleged unauthorized construction was no opportunity as some reasonable time ought to have been given to the petitioners. In cases, where demolition had already taken place, the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to appropriate forum for grant of compensation/damages, if so advised. . Since no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, the impugned notices dated 15.11.2011 and 08.11.2011 are quashed. However, the respondent No. 7 Le. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia, is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, after aifording reasonable opportunity, may be two weeks, to the petitioners and aiter examining the case ofthe petitioners, may pass appropriate order. if so advised. . Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. SATISH K. ANGNH'IOT’RI Judge Sd/—