—1!--ff HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fQ No. 2251 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Anil Kumar Ahuja S/o Late Udhav Das Ahuja Age 41 years, R/o Guru Kripa Cloth Stores, Janta Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fQ No. 2252 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Tirath Das Bajaj S/o Shri Dularam Bajaj, Age 46 years, R/o Prop. Ganesh Kirana Stores Main Road, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipm- (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fC) No. 2253 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Sunil Kumar Ahuja S/o Shri Radhakrishna Ahuja Age 35 Years, R/o Prop. Ashish Collection Main Road, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Throu.eh Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (Q No. 2254 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Hanshi Devi Makhija W/o Late Keshav Das Makhija Age 64 years, R/o Harish Bartan Bhandar, Near Post Office, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fC) No. 2255 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Jairam Das Ahuja S/o Shri Udhav Das Ahuja, Age 43 years, R/o Prop. Ashish Cloth Stores, Main Road, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (Q No. 2256 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. Raj Kumar Ahuja S/o Late Udhav Das Ahuja, Age 52 years, R/o Raj Electronics, Janta Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION CC) No. 2257 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. 2. Leela Ram Dewangan S/o Late Shyam Lal Dewangan, Age 53 years, R/o Friends Tailors, Janta Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2258 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. Sukhdev Dewangan S/o Shri Purushottam Dewangan, Age 55 years, R/o Dev STD, Janta Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (Q No. 2259 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Sandhya Tejwani W/o Shri Shyamlal Tejwani, Age 41 years, R/o Govind Glass Agency, Opp. Janta Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Thi'ough Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION CC) No. 2260 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 2. Smt. Asha Devi Parwani W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Parwani, Age 38 years, R/o Ramesh Hosiery & Cloth Center, Opp. Mata Mandir, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1769 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Smt. Mandakini Ram W/o Late Dr. Shant Kumar Age 61 years, R/o Clinic, Near Patwa Complex, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRITPETITION fC) No. 1770 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 2. Smt. Khorbaharin Bai W/o Late Ghasiya Ram Sinha, Age 64 years, R/o H. No. 44/New, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (Q No. 1771 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. Smt. Meena Chaturvedi W/o Jagmohan Chaturvedi, Age 40 years, R/o Near Railway Crossing, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of .Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1772 of 2009 Smt. Mamta Chandrakar W/o Naresh Kumar Chandrakar, Age 35 years, R/o C/o KaiTiini Medical Stores, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. Miinicipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1773 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Chunnilal Sahu S/o Late Pusau Ram Sahu Age 42 years, R/o Main Road, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION ('Q No. 1774 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Manohar Saloman S/o Late SAloman David Age 68 Years R/o H. No. 28/1899, Near Jai Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION (Q 1775 No. of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Mangaluram Banjare S/o Kanhaiyalal Banjare, Age 73 Years, R/o C/o Jaishree Poultry Farm, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1776 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. Basant Kumar Dhruw S/o Shri Narayan Singh Dhn-iw, Age 65 years, R/o Sanchalak of Hindu Bal Samaj Through Power of Attorney, Thakur Ram Sahu, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of CUhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1777 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. Sunil Kumar Nanwani S/o Girdharilal Nanwani Age 39 years, R/o near Ababa STD, Main Road, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of CUhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION CC) No. 1778 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. Chaitram Maheshwari S/o Shri Gadariya Maheshwari, Age 50 years, R/o H. No. 67/481, R.S. Cycle Stores, Near Janta Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 0 WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1779 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. Rikhi Ram Sahu S/o Late Pyarilal Sahu, Age 46 years, R/o H. No. 44/New, Near Durga Mandir, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION f0 No. 1780 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. Sonurani Vishwakamia S/o Late Saldiaram Vishwakarma Age 70 Years, Proprietor of Vishwakarma Fabricators, Gopal STD PCO Amar Kirana Store, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of CKhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION CQ No. 1781 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l^ Ramprasad Sahu S/o Late Bajrang Sahu, Age 62 years, R/o Near Om Krishna Hotel, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Coi-poration, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1782 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Purushottam Chandrakar S/o Shri Mannalal Chandrakar, Age 36 years, R/o Prop. Vikas Electricals, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) '"^ WRIT PETITION (Q No. 1783 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. Sonu Vishwakarma S/o Late Sakharam Vishwakarma Age 70 years, R/o Near Railway Crossing, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioaer, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1784 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Chaitram Sahu S/o Chaituram Sahu, Age 55 years, R/o Prop. Vijendra Pan Center, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Clihattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1785 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Mannalal Chandrakar S/o Late Sakalu Chandrakar, Age 72 years, R/o Near Jaishree Poultry Farm, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1786 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS : \. Sunil Kumar Sen S/o Chandrika Prasad Sen Age 42 years, R/o Sunil Hair Art, Near Jaishree Poultry Farm, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) f' WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1787 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. Kailash Kumar Sinha S/o Ghasiya Ram Sinha, Age 35 years, R/o Prop. .Kailash Electronics, Near Super Tailors, Beside Krishna Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION ('Q No. 1788 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. 2. Rajkumar Saluja S/o Amarjeet Singh Saluja, Age 24 years, R/o Sai Computer's Near Ababa STD, Telibmdha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through CoiTunissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1789 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. Chaitanya Singh S/o Purushottam Singh, Age 23 years, R/o Near Railway Crossing, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER WRIT PETITION ('Q No. 1790 of 2009 Mohammad Gaffar Khan, S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, Age 46 years, R/o Bharat Scraped Traders, Opp. Satnanii Dharmshala, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : l. VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) ) : WR[T PETITION fQ No. 1791 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. 2. Ghasiya Ram Maheshwari S/o Late Gadariya Maheshwari, Age 62 years, R/o H. No. 64/481, S.Kumar's Tailors, Near Janta Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (Q No. 1792 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. Kaluram Dhritlahare S/o Balram Dhritlahare Age 65 years, R/o Near Jaishree Poultry Farm, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1793 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Bhikhari Ram Ratrey S/o Shri Derha Ram Ratrey, Age 53 years, R/o Near Jaishree Poultry Farm, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (Q No. 1794 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. Mohammad Aziz Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, Age 48 years, R/o Bharat Scraped Traders, Opp. Satnami Dharmshala, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 10 WRIT PETITION fC) No. 1795 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. Ganga Prasad Markandey S/o Late Atmaram Markandey Age 44 years, R/o H. No. 44/New Rajesh Pan Palace, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1796 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. Sukhdas Banjare S/o Kanhaiyalal Banjare, Age 54 years, R/o Prop. Of Shivam Screen Printers, Near Jaishree Poultry Farm, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (Q No. 1797 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. Tarachand Sahu S/o Late Pyaiilal Sahu, Age 42 years, R/o H. No. 44/New Hariom Fabricators, Opp. Durga Mandir, Telibandha, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C') No. 1798 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. 2. Shyeuiilal Sahu S/o Late Pusau Ram Sahu, Age 52 years, Prop. Of Kanhaiya Pan Bhandai, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporatioa, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 11 PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1799 of2009 Kanhaiya Lal Sahu S/o Late Pusau Ram Sahu, Age 48 years, R/o Hotel Kanhaiya, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Ghhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRJT PETITION fC) No. 1800 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Goverdhan Prasad Markandey S/o Late Atmaram Markandey Age 35 Years, R/o H.No. 44, Goverdhan Kirana Store, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1801 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Horilal Sahu S/o Shivcharan Sahu, Age 30 years, R/o Near Bal Samaj, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of CKhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fQ No. 1802 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Dhaniram Sahu s/o Late Pyarilal Sahu, Age 50 years, R/o H. No. 44/New, Near Durga Mandir, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 12 WRIT PETITION fQ No. 1803 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Pumendra Kui'nar Sinha S/o Ghasiya Ram Sinha, Age 32 years, R/o Super Tailors, Beside Krishna Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1804 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Ramprasad Sahu, Age 30 years, R/o Proprietor ofOm Krishna Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fQ No. 1805 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 Yogesh Kumar Nanwani S/o Girdharilal Nanwaai, Age 27 years, R7o Near Ababa STD, Main Road, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION CC) No. 1806 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. 2. Amarjeet Singh Saluja S/o Late Labh Singh Saluja, Age 58 years, R/o Near Ababa STD PCO, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1807 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. PETITIONER Dr. Praveen Chandrakar S/o Shri K.L.Chandrakar, Age 47years, R/o Chandrakar Clinic, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION ('C) No. 1808 of 2009 Laxminarayan Sahu S/o Late Pyarilal Sahu, age 30 years, R/o Pooja Electricals, Near Durga Mandir, Railway Crossing, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. Municipal Coqioration, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (Q No. 1809 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. 2. Baraturam Banjare S/o Khorbahara Banjare, Age 58 years, R/o Prop. Raja Pan Masala, Near Jaishree Poultry Fann, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1810 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1 2. Ganeshram Sahu S/o Late Pyarilal Sahu, age 48 years, R/o Pooja Furnitures, Near Durga Mandir, Telibandha G.E. Road, Raipui- (C.G.) VERSUS Mimicipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 14 WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1811 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. 2. Sandeep Saloman S/o Manohar Saloman, Age 39 years, R/o Proprietor of Shikhar STD PCO Photocopies, Near Jaishree Poultry Farm, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1812 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. Pawan Kumar Sinha S/o Ghasiya Ram Sinha, Age 44 years, R/o Super Tailors, Beside Krishna Hotel, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION CQ No. 1813 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. Jagdish Prasad Sahu S/o Late Pyaiilal Sahu, age 52 years, R/o H. No. 44/New New, Near Durga Mandir, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Smt. Kiran Mayee Nayak, Advocate with Shri C.R.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the respondent - Municipal Corporation, Raipur. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Alok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 2. Li / 15 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 01 day of May,2009) 1. In this batch of matters, the petitioners are aggrieved by demolition of the houses, shops and other structures which, according to them were in their continuous and settled possession for the last several years, sihiated at Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. 1-Corporation exercised its power under provisions of section 322 and 323 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956') and issued notices to the petitioners and thereafter, after hearing the grievance of the petitioners initiated the process of demolition of the structures for the puqaose of widening of the road. According to the petitioners, they were not served notiees. 3. Smt. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that since the structures have already been demolished, the petitioners have no other right except the right to reasonable compensation for damages or loss that may be caused as a consequence in the process of wideniag ofthe public street (road). 4. Smt. Nayak next submits that the matter of Purushottam Sarin v. State of Chhattisgarh {W.P.(C) No. 1035/2009} and other connected matters i.e. W.P.(C) No. 1053/2009, 1086/2009 and 1574/2009 was with regard to the encroachers, but in the present case, as per the proceedings of meeting of the Committee of Shri M.K.Gupta, Town Planner, Shri 16 7. S.K.Dubey, Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and Shri Pulak Bhattacharya, Additional Tehsildar, for compensation and rehabilitation, held on 23.04.2009 found that there are four types ofcases i.e. (i) land allotted on regular patta, (ii) land obtained on authorization, (iii) Bhumi swami of the land, and (iv) encroachment. Smt. Nayak submits that there is no challenge to the validity of the notice or irregularity or illegality in demolition of the houses, shops and other stmctures, the subject matter ofthis petition, in this batch ofpetitions. Shri Agrawal, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.l/Corporation submits that some ofthe petitioners were encroachers and some of the consto^ctions were not in accordance with law and without permission of the municipal authorities under the provisions of the Act, 1956. Shri Agrawal further submits that the case ofthe petitioners are squarely covered by judgment and order dated 22.04.2009 passed by this Court in the matter of Pwushottam Sarin (supra). Therefore, these petitions may be disposed ofin the same terms and conditions. The respondent-Corporation by order dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure A/l filed in W.P.(C) No. 1769/2009 along with the application for taking additional documents on record dt. 30.4.2009) has constituted a Committee in exercise of its power under the provisions of law as under: "-:3TT^W- ^Wc^ ...../^'qT.^TuT. /08-09 Wy, 23.03.2009 17 d^NfEiT ^ otici^ifirqT ^ czra^snTT.T t^ f^ri'cii 05.02.2009 <ijt Ticf ^' ^TfStT 'wPrRT ^' ^T?ttf6^r ^^ ^; P|MI'J,'MI'< 'ffPifiT irfS^ ^ ufnft t ult ^ ^f f^W 01.02.2009 W ^cfNrfETT ^ 5!]l4lRflt' ^ PripT WTR^ <^ ft^ ^T f^arr' ^»RT: 1) f^Rraft ^^T^ 3T?IcT: %£^t t fff^ 1ft^ Wre <i4d<q t tit f^Rracr ire^ ^ A^iffcT ^ ??ra^ uTTg •9*11^1 fOlri qft uTT^ift | 2) ffK ^qiFRK ^ Tft^ *{fir ?tX WSS^t % T^ T^lRd tff^ W '^).1?.3TTC 'ETTgOT t Ut ^ l?lp.1?.3TR f^TT ull^'ll | 3) fu|-l*1 ^^I^' T£JhT: 1ET'>TTf^T gt •^t t TTF d-1 <t>) ^clNfEIT ^ SnwiTCT ^TcPET ^ll'Httil^l Tff^ iTTaiPl^m c^ STTEIK W ^qWET 4>'<l<t>'i oT^wpT-r f^m uiT^Trr. 1R ^ •Mg^iRi ^ SITER tK oycj<ii(Si^')' ^ ira'T/'^ft ^ ^ttT/lTcR P^rf^ STg.sTT snf^ ^ aiPlc^isT ^r ^Tem ^? spm w^ srfi'pm xp? m? <^ a.f^? ff'F^T ^lft 1 VKRf <^ •HC;'W P'F^I'j.'HI'; t •- 1. '•TT'? pl<i^|cb, '•TT7 mf?TtI> f-T7TT, ^PTy ('^.'^.) 2. •(tMI^<W 'CTuTCT, 7PT? TTf^W fiFPT, 'CTZT^,^ (®.7T.) 3. ^ft •q^{'s ire,eraN. (T^ftcRT?, wyi (^.ir.) 'SVQ vftiKt ^ ftp? PTR *4t.ii'S1 H^t^r^rf ^i'it i 1 «ft ai Rci 41 wrf. g'lTft 'CT.^.PT. tTTuTN Rl'tll'l '•fW ')lfcf<t> Pl'l*!, •i^y ('B.'T.) 2 -sft RfclT; -H^.II, ^T-grPT;f?TT ^it^ ^'. 4 ^PK 4ifct<b f-FTT. ~Wy{ ('ff.'T.) airg<Rr •FK 4lRf<(> P^PT. ^ray (s.^.Y' 8. On perusal of the minutes of the meeting as annexed tQ additional documents dated 29.04.2009, filed in W.P.(C) No. 1769/2009, it appears that a three member committee consisting of Shri M.K.Gupta, Town Planner, Shri S.K.Dubey, Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and Shri Pulak Bhattacharya, Additional Tehsildar, has been constituted. The constitution of the Committee was referred with approval by this Court in Jagdeo Singh Garcha (supra). 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings, documents appended thereto and judgments of this Court in various cases. In Deepak Kumar Shrivastava v. Municipal Corporation & another (W.P.(C) No. 257/2007), this Court by order dated 29"' March, 2007, disposed of the petition with liberty reserved to the /' ^' 18 petitioner to invoke the provisions of section 387 ofthe Act, 1956, in accordance with law. 10. In Purushottam Sarin and other connected matters (supra), this Court while dealing with encroachments, observed as under: 28. If we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the principles laid down in the above judgments relied upon by the respective parties, this Court notice fliat case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they were in settled possession over the disputed land since decades by constructing their shops/dwelling houses over the same. Their predecessors in title were occupyirig abadi land. After the area was included in the town area, the abadi land was treated as Nazul land by implication of law. Erstwhile State Government decided to confer Bhumiswami right to the old occupants of the Nazul lands. Occupants were asked to pay premium etc. for granting formal documents for their possession in the shape of lease hold right and in some cases lease deeds were also executed. The petitioners as also erstwhile occupants of the disputed lands, treating themselves to be the owners of the property, have entered into various transactions with respect to the disputed property. They also applied for grant of sanction for construction of buildings etc. and the Corporation accorded them sanction after accepting requisite fee. In the earlier rouiid of litigation between the persons belonging to the same locality and the Corporation, the orders were passed to the effect that if the respondents want land for widening ofroad, they should proceed in accordance with law and should not use high-handed practice. However, after W.P(C)No. 768/2009 was disposed ofon 11.2.2009, the petitioners were served with two days' notice on 13.2.2009 and illegal demolition was carried out on 15.2.2009 i.e. Sunday, without allowing any time to the petitioners to reply the notice or to avail legal remedy available under the law. Present provision ofSection 322 came into statute on 30.05.1994 by amendment. Since there was no analogous provision in the un-amended statute before 30.5.1994 and the possession of the petitioners is admittedly before 30.5.1994, the notice under Section 322 ofthe Act, 1956 to the petitioners on the basis ofamended provisions is illegal. y 19 29. The petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their contention to establish that their predecessors in title were occupants ofthe disputed abadi land, which was subsequently converted to Nazul land after the area was included in town area. There is nothing on record to show that the disputed govemment nazul land was settled in favour of the occupants by the State onthebasis oftheir oldpossession....." As a result, this Court, while dismissing the petitions, ordered as under: "38. The petitioners have also claimed that suitable compensation against the respondents on account of their acts of omission and commission in illegally demolishing their shops/dwelling houses. Since this Court has already held that the legal right claimed by the petitioners is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any material pn record, it is not possible to quantify the damages/compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled for and the petitioners may claim the reliefs, which they have claimed in these petitions, by filing appropriate civil suit in the court of competent jurisdiction. 39. For the aforesaid reasons, no relief, as claimed by the petitioners in these petitions, can be granted in the instant proceeding. The petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No order asto costs." 11. In Jagdeo Singh Garcha v. Nagar PalikNigam, Raipur (W.P. (C) No. 1118/2009, the petition was disposed of on 26.03.2009 on