mGH COURT OETUDICATURE, CEIHATTISGABHATBIfcASPUR WritPetitionNo.2407 of 2003 tONER: EBPONDQES: Vijay Kumar Agiawa), S/o Mahesh Prasad, aged 50 years, resident of Motipara,Duig(C.G.). Versus 1. MadhusudanAganval, S/o Jagdish Frasad Aganval, aged 60 years, Sangam Press,Durg. 2. Collectnr, Nazul, Durg 3. Officer-In-Charge, Town and Country Planning, Durg. 4. Commissioner, Mumdpal Corporation, Durg. 5. StateGovtofChhattisgarh, Tlu'ough- The Sea'etaiy, NagariPiasashan & Vikas Vibhag, D.K.5. Bhawan,Eflipur. POST FOR QRDER ON ^.y^AUGUST, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge -—»fl i^H^COUE^TQFEiraCATUREtQBIATTlSGASHATBa.ASPUR Writ Petition No. 2407 of 2003 PETmOMER: Vijay KumaiAgTawal, S/o Mahesh Prasad, aged M years, resident of_ Motipara, Du'g (C.G.). Versu; EESPQNDENTS: 3. Madhusudan Aganval, S/o Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, aged 60years,Sangam Press;Uurg. CoUector/ Nazuly Durg OfBcer-In-Charge, Town and Country Planning, Durg. Coaunissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg. State Govt ofChhattisgirh, Thiough- The Secretaiy, NagariPrasashan & Vijkas Vibhag, D.KS. Bhawan, Kaipur. Shii N. L. Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi-i Sanjay K. Aganval, Depuly Advocate Geneial for the Respondent/State. Befoie; Hon'Ue Mr. Jnstice L.C. Bhadoo, J. ORDER (Passed on 1^'August, 2003) 1. The petitioner has prefened this petition undei Artides 226/227 of the Constitution ofliidia, Tlie petitioners case is fhat he ruim a Frinting Piess near Maliatma Gandlii Higher Secondaiy Schobl, Durg. The site plan prepared by Shri Pulak BIiattacharya, Naib Tahsildai endosed with Ae report daied 5.9.2001 is Annexure P/l. There is one^ drainage behind thelback of the petitionei s Prmting Press foi drainmg put the tap water and rain water wUch was existing on flie nazul land ofcommon use but Ae RespondentNo.l by enaoaching upon the said land h®consti'ucted a tank ofwater therety blocked the drainage. Now flie water is blocked and Ae same is not drained out wludi ^' ./' -z-' :-&' "^, is adversety affectmg the health condition of the petitioner s workers and also creatmg problem to the petitioner, therafore whole dramage system and civic ameiiities are adversety afiected. One mattei was filed before fhe Sub Divisional Magistrate under section 133 of the Criminal.Procediue Code but fhe learned Sub Divisional Magfetrate lias declined to take any action on the gi'ound tliat the dispute in question comes within the private nuisance. Against that order a revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, who also decSined to mterfere with fhe ordei. On account of the blockage of drainage waSEi'is stagnating andbad smeU is coming out ofthat stagnated water. Due ta stagnation of water seepage has started in fhe premises of the petitioner and papers used in prmting and various materials are being dainaged and over ail unhygienic envn'onmenthas been created. The petitioner has requested fhat the respor.dents be directed to restore the oudet of rain and sewerage water by removal of fhe obsti'uction in the existmg dramage. 2. I have gone fhrough the oider passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and also tlie Additional Sessions Judge. On the du'ectionofthe SubDivfeional Magisti'ate flie Niab Tehsfldar went on fhe spot and conducted the enquny. After enqui^' Niab Teteildar as weU as tlie S.D.M. has reached to the condusion that the dispute.in question comes under the private nuteance. More over nothing has come on record that die diainage system was on the iiazul Sand or it is a private land because as per fhe recoid tfae Respondent No.l has denied the existence of the drainage sysiem siiice long and he has also denied ihe fact fhat the land in question upon which flie drainage was existing is Nazul Land. 3. In view pf the above facts of the matter the disputed question of facts are involved in this petitionwhich requires thiough enquiry whether itis a ruzul land br private land upon which drainage system was existmg and such ® ./ disputed questions carmot be decided in writ jurudiction. In oidei to radress his gi'ievance fhe petitioner can appioach a Civil Court if he so advised. In view of the above I do not find any substence in ttus writ petition and to exeicise discretioiiaiy powers under the extra ordinary jurisdiction. The petitionisdisposedoffinalfy.^t^1^''^"3'^-^ *_ 1 1 Sd/- jt,,.,^I-C.BhadoQ Judge