IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. ^^ ? / /2011 PETITIONER Sitaram Agrawal, S/o. Late Shri Rameshwar Agrawal, Aged about 80 years, R/o. Raipur Road, Saranggarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : ^^^. ^^•^ ^••^^"^^ VERSUS 1) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Adniinistration and Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) y 2) Sub- Divisional OfGcer (Revenue), Sarangagarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) ^ _. . . 3) Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar, Panchayat Saranggarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE-226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA rti T< HIGH COURT f)F CHHA'ITISGARH AT B5I.ASNJS WMT PKT'mQN fC'.No. 6711 of2011 PETITIONER : Sitaram Aerawal. wx^^j ~v- v r^i'<i^ijt'1 RESPONDENTS : The Staie ofCnnatfisparh & CAers. WKIT FETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 01'' THE CONS'mUlTON OF.INDIA 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Amihotra. .1. Present: Shri Shasharik Thakur. Advocate tortne petttioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govenmiem Advouai.e for loe Stals/ resnondent. No. 1 and 2. Cll-—:T? " Ti-.i.."? A.J.....^..'., P.._. ^1_..„„..„..._.i..^^ 1S.T-. '? oiin K.a.r^.isi, Ao-vocaic lor iiic Fcspoiiu^Hi I.NO. .i'. .p^^..%%£^-— ^r'a&iSCLi ijijl iy U<a.V VI i^yvdiiucx". ^vii ? 1. Bv this netition. the oetitioner seeks to fiuash the iniDuaied notice dated 03.11.2011 (AimeAi.ire P./l'i issued bv the resDondeat No. 3. i.e. Chief Miu'iicipal Ofiicer^ N^.gar Paneha.ya.u Sar^ng^rh, whereby the petitioner has been asked fo remove his .strocture situa.ted over the laad in dispiitc^ ail^gediy cosistnieted iliega.lly, 2. Shri Tha.fciir, lea.med coiuisel appearmg for the peti'tioneT submits t.ha.t tlie netitioner has consln.acted building on the nlot. afl:er obtainiBe Droper F'enxiissioii fi'om the eoucemed a.uthorities, H§&rther submit.s that an iron ladder has been erected for aoDroachins the first floor of the biiildias. Shri Tliakur nex'i contends tb.at Ifae resoondent No. 3 has found that the iron ladder used bv the oetitioner is the structiire is not ea.using anv isieonveTiience to 'ths? Txiblic or ths vehicles 011 the rc'ad., Thus. the aotice dated 03.11.2011 for removal ofthe name is -withoiit -^ anv nasis. 3. Bc that a.s it nis'y'- it acoeare that there are cerfa.in observations ma.de bv the of&cers that. the iron ladder erected bv tbe netitioner is not caiisiag acv inconvemence to tlie oublic or vehicles on tn.e road, IIowever. in the impugiied iiotice, there is nient.ion. of iron shed and /y^ ^^mit other constniction also which is aliesed to have neen coiisfnict.ed withoiit prior Deniiissiou, 4, In view ofthe above. it. woiiid be nDDroDriate to direct. the resoondent No. 3 i.e. Chief MiuiiciDai QfEcer. Nagar Pas.ehavat. Sa.ransarh to t^kg st.eng m rt.ccQrd^nee with I^.'w- ^.ft^r ftfFordin^ rsQsc'u^.ble Hnd proper opportiixiity of he^ring to 'tlie pgtii.ionen1 ftiid eAaniine t.he c^.se ofthe t'etitioners. before Dassins the aoDrooriate ordcr, .5. It is ordered accordmslv. 6. In view ofthe above. the writ r'etitioa is disoosed of. No order asto costs. ^~-"."—SdA- SATISH K. ANGNIHOW 1^ Judge