^^ '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 33 of 2002 Petitioner Virendra Singh Vs. Resporidents ' Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai& pthers. And two other connected matters. Post for pronouncement ofthe Judgment and Order on f5 /12/2008 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /^•/12/2UU5 <b'> Petitioner Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 33 of 2002 Virendra Singh son of Mr. Kishan Lal aged about 29 years, Naya Khusipar near Sindhi Dharamsala Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1) Administrator Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Old SADA Office, Supela Tahsil and Distt. Durg (CG). 2) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Old SADA Office, Supela Tehsil and Dist. Durg (CG). 3) Revenue Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Old SADA Office, Supela Tehsil and Distt. Durg (CG). ^ Present: Mr. Krishnalal, father and power of attorney hotder of the petitioner in person. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the respondents. Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, counsel for the Intervenor. Wrjt Petition No. 3531 of 2003 Petitioners Respondents 1. Dharampal, S/o. Ram Ratan, aged about 70 years, JANTA BOOT HOUSE, Circular Market, Camp-2, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil & Distt. Durg(CG). 2. Surendra Kumar, S/o. Shri Nandlal, aged about 39 years, KUMAR CHAPPEL STORES, Camp-2, Power House, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG). Versus 1) Municipal Corporation Bhilai, through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Old SADA Office, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG). 2) Virendra Singh, aged about 29 years, S/o. Kishan Lal. 3) Jawahar, aged about 37 years, S/o. Kishan Lal. ,f^\ I 1 IT^. '^ 4) Nek Singh, S/o. Kishan Lal, Adult, Respondents 2 to 4: C/o. Jawahar Boot House, Block No.3, No.3, Circular Market, Camp-2, Bhitai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG) And also: C/o. Plot No.9124, Smt. Indira Gandhi Lane, Cicular Market, Camp-2 Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (CG). R/o. New Khuripar, Nar Sindhi, Dharamshala, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG). Present: Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Solapurkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Kishan Lal, father ofthe respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 appears in person on the basis of power of attorney. & Petitioner Writ Petition No. 2695 of 1997 Virendra Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Mr. Kishan Lal Rsident of Plot No.9124, Smt. Indira Gandhi Lane, Cicular Market, Camp-11, Bhilai, at present r/o. New Khursipar, Near Sindhi, Dharmshala, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (MP). Respondent Versus Municipal Council Bhilai, Distt. Durg, through its Commissioner. Present: Mr. Krishnalal, father and power of attorney holder of the petitioner in person. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. (Writ Petition underArticle 226 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. "<% ^s^ ^.^..t^":^;; '<^^^^i JUDGMENT & ORDER (Passed on this /^ day of December, 2008) These Writ Petition Nos. 33 of 2002, 3531 of 2003 and 2695 of 1997 involve a common question of law having common facts, are being disposed of by the common judgment and order. 2) By this petition (Writ Petition No.33 of 2002) the petitioner seeks tuashing of the order dated 29-12-2001 (Annexure P/1), whereby the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, held that the possession of Veerendra Singh, Jawahar Singh and Nek Singh sons of Krishnalal on Camp-11, Circular Market, Power House, Opposite Indira Gandhi statue between Block No. 3 and 4 in Bhilai is unauthorized as the said land is a part of the road. Thus, the petitioner was directed to remove the possession forthwith. The orders dated 23-12-1978 & 3-1-1978 (Annexure P/2) were also challenged wherebyit was held that the name of the petitioner's brother, Raj Kumar was not in the list of Bhilai Steel Plant. 3) Writ Petition No.3531 of 2003 was filed by Dharampal and Surendra Kumar wherein all the brothers i.e., Virendra Singh, Jawahar & Nek Singh and Jawahar Boot House are party respondents No. 2 to 4. The petitioners claim to be shop holders in the same locality allotted by the respondent/ Corporation. The petitioners in this petition seek a direction to the respondent No.l/Municipal Corporation to remove the encroachment of the respondents No. 2 to 4. 4) Writ Petition No. 2695 of 1997 was filed by Virendra Singh, wherein the petitioner seeks a writ or direction against the respondent/Municipal Corporation to take immediate steps for regularization of the plot in question in favour of the petitioner. All the petitions deal with the same plot which is in question in Writ PetitionNo.33 of 2002. ^ Vi S SS ., '"^.:. ^ ^ i' v^-y ^.::^.^ 5) The facts for disposal of these petitions are that Shri Krishnalal, the father of the petitioner being Power of Attorney holder, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and contended that Circular Market area of Camp-2, of Power House, Bhilai, was under Special Area Development Authority (for short, "SADA"), Durg. By notification dated 9-6-1998, SADA was dissolved and all the assets and liabilities were transferred to the respondent-Corporation. Once Raj Kumar, the elder brother of the petitioner applied for permanent fellotment of the disputed area before the SADA. The said allotment could not be made in his name as he was at that point of time minor. However, the petitioner along with his brothers, namely Jawahar and Nek Singh continued in possessionsince prior to 23-12-1973 on the disputed plot/shop. The petitioner claimed allotment of the said area on permanent basis on the basis of continuous possession. Thus, the impugned orders mentioned hereinabove may be quashed, 6) Krishnalal, father ofVirendra Singh in person on the basis of power of attorney further submits that the impugned order is passed without application of mind. Before passing the impugned order, no prior notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner and the order was passed ex parte. The finding ofthe Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, that there is a road as per master plan of the Circular Market is pen/erse as there is no such road in existence as on date. Even in the past, also, no notification was issued declaring the plot/shop in question as a part of the road. Thus, the petitioner seeks quashing of the above impugned orders as well as permanent injunction against the respondents. 7) Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and H.M. Solapurkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Municipal Corporation submit that other connected writ petition No.2695 of 1997 has been transferred from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel further submits that the i 1 petitioner has committed fraud by not disclosing disposal as well as pendency of other writ petitions dealing with the same issue. Further, the petitioner has not mentioned the order passed in the contempt petition being Contempt Case No. 193 of 2000 and as such this petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. The corporation has through-out maintained in all the petitions filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and here that the possession ofthe petitioner (Virendra Singh) and his brothers on the plot in question is unauthorized and illegal. The plot/shop in question was never allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner has been continuing in possession unauthorisedly as there was some stay order granted by the High Court in the other petitions fited by the petitioner (Virendra Singh) and his brothers. The petitioner has failed to establish that ever in time the said plot/shop was allotted to the petitioner and his brothers. If the petitioner claims possession on account of other facts, this court may not decide the same disputed questions of facts. 8) Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3531 of 2003 submits that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 33 of 2002 and his brothers have been in illegal possession of the ptot in dispute and in the various petitions, which were disposed of by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the respondent-Corporation has taken the stand that the possession was unauthorized. In view of the categorical statement of the respondent-Corporation, which is approved as the matter was disposed of, and in the light of observations made herein by the respondent Corporation, the dispute can again not be in question in this petition. Thus, the Writ Petition No.3531 of 2003 filed by Dharampal and Surendra Kumar may be allowed. 9) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. l^5. 10) In Writ Petition No. 1825 of 1996 filed by Dharampal against the SADA and the petitionerA/irendra Singh , the High Court observed that the petitioner herein i.e. Virendra Singh has encroached the plot unauthorisedly and the Corporation is making endeavour to remove the unauthorized construction. On the basis of the above stated observation, the writ petition was disposed of hotding that nothing survives for adjudication. In Writ petition No.2793 of 1997 filed by Dharampal, the petitioner in Writ Petition Jo.3531 of 2003 against SADA and the petitionerA/irendra Singh was also disposed of in view of the earlier order as stated above observing that the petitioner/Dharampal in the said petition may approach the SADA for necessary action. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the Writ Petition No. 5230 of 1998 filed by Dharampal (petitioner in Writ Petition No.3531 of 2003) against the Corporation and the petitionerA/irendra Singh holding that the dispute involved cannot be considered by the High Court and the petitioner/Dharampal in Writ Petition No.3531 of 2003 may take recourse to the statutory remedies available to him. In Writ Petition No. 1391 of 1999 filed by Surendra Kumar (one of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3531 of 2003) with regard to the plot filed against Municipal Corporation and the petitionerA/irendra Singh, the High Court again recorded the statement ofthe Corporation that the Corporation would make endeavour to remove the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition Nos. 33 of 2002 and 2695 of 1997. The case was disposed of in Writ Petition No.3179 of 1996 filed by Jawahar Singh and Neksingh, brothers of the petitioners herein against SADA and Corporation, wherein the Corporation made a statement that the Corporation would consider the request of the petitioners for allotment of the plot. Thereafter, the Contempt Petition No. 193 of 2000 was filed by the petitionerA/irendra Singh. The contempt petition was dropped making .ctear that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation ^ ,^;<^^ •^'f^s^^-^''^ ^.^i^Ll--^" shall consider the application made by Vjrendra Singh and his brothers in appropriate perspective and pass appropriate order. Pursuant to the order dated 8-9-2001 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Contempt Case No. 193 of 2000, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has considered the matter at length and found which reads as under: fi~^ 3Tf^TTf^T t f^ M^l^l-1 ^ ^ ^f ^TI^T ^ '^3^R ^T ^t^ ^r TT?^ 1^nf ^FTTPT WT^ "^' ^iPi^ ^r ^T ^ 12.10.1997 c^- -f^TT^ ^PTKT WT:? "^cT d^blc^-l f^?t? ^T Rlchi^ pTf^^T 1^n^ c^ TTSZT ^ c|r?K c^ TTf^CT ^ ^^ld\!ul ^N^ft 4'v^chd ^^ldvjl f^T 4.4.1978 c^ f$T^ ^?n?r ^f^r ^T?T d^ic^l-i 'fNtq' ^ f^ra mf^^T 'P'RTT^ "^ TTST ^ f^T Trar 1^raTt RlciiR^i ^r ^T ^Nl-did^iul HTf^cIr?uT c^ q-ST ^r fzfyqr TRTT f. ^T ^cj^ zr? y^llPia t f^ ^ft d^hlc^-1 '?fTf^c|^oT c^ N;<1|P]<^| cf?t f -^cf ^T^TcRUT 4rT ^ c^ cTR- 1998 ^ ^ f^FFT ^P^ ^ f^FPT 'f^nf "^ N^r t. SHT^P 7r arq^ ^SR ^r ^ ^^ t f^ RlcllRd ^TcT TN 'cf? 3ft^ "^Tc^ ^ 'f^TT^ ^PTRT ^TO3r ^ WTO ^ c?5TflTvJT f XR^ ^=TC^ gT?T ^TT "c^ ^ft c,^|^ ^R^T ^€tf^TT t. f^RT^ 'q? WV^ ^t f^ Rlciif^cl ^-^r^T cfyr ^6^ c^ 'CT^T ^r f^ZTT TTZTT ?t ^T ^ c|^ P|^IU| c^ c^- 3T3Trf^ ^t Trf ^r. ^Ter: ^r? iTT?T "we" ^q" '^' y^if&id t f^ ^FTT^^ ^T ^f^" •^T TT? AT ^^TT t ^Tf 3Tf^tm ^ ^ft ^ 3TRTT f. ^RT v^ ^\^w ^f^n? ^?t f^ c^n- R|C||R(^ v^ ~SP\ ^Kfe^r ~^\ ^TT ^Tc^Tt f. RlcjlRd ^pr ^TcFJo TTT^fe ^T 2 ^ '(^TT ^rs^ "^r ^pr t 3ft? w^ ^t ^pr ^T 3T^RTT ^ 'f^TT ^ Ni-lcbdl 31H: ^-t|c|<ch ^T ^T ^Nq- ^ Pl^-1 ^F^WR ^ 'f^'qT ^TT ^ch^l. ^T ^N^T ^ 3PTT^^ ^ OTcT^T ^l-f-Tl^l ^^T ^l^lld^l vj1<s<cy14,^ ^NT ^ft ^ ^ f^R^T f^r ^ ^ t. ^Tiic)c;ch gr^r ^rq^ vrcnir ^ sy^r G^T ^- ^^ ^^ TT^ t ^TT ^cf^TTT c^ p]N;|ch^U| c^ f^ Wcf^Tc^ ^ in and consequently held that the petitioner is a trespasser and is unauthorized possession of the plot in dispute which is situated in between the road, therefore, he was directed to remove the possession which is sought to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 33 of 2002 along with the impugned order dated 13-11-198, wherein Rajkumar was not granted allotment of plot in 1998. Raj Kumar had died long back. 11) The dispute with regard to location of the disputed plot is a matter of fact. The petitioner Virendra Singh and his brothers were never allotted •-^^ %^wi^ ' {^%. ^l^^. ^^fs^ legally a plot where they are allegedly working for the last more than 23 years and havebeen in possession thereof. The dispute cannot be resolved by this Court with regard to the location of the plot as well as whether the possession is unauthorized orauthorized. 12) On perusal of the papers, it is clear no allotment of the said plot/shop was ever made to the brothers of the petitioner and the petitionerA/irendra Singh or the father. Thus, with regard to the allotment ofthe plot/shop, there % no reason to interfere with and direct the authorities to allot the plot/shop. So far as location of the plot/shop is concerned, this Court cannot decide the disputed question of fact and as such the petitioner may approach to the jurisdictional civil court, ifso advised. 13) In view of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, all the Writ Petitions being Writ Petitions No. 33 of 2002, 2695 of 1997 and 3531 of 2003 are dismissed with the above stated liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju