^^, I^fl^ ^£ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition Mo. 2394 of 2001 Leelagar Singh, aged about 85 years; Son of Late Rampyare Singh, R/o. Janjgir, Purani Bastl, Tah. Janjgir, Distt. Q-iampa-uanjgir {CG). Versus 1) ,The State of Chhatti^arh through Coilector, Janjgir, Distt. Champa- Janjgir/ 2) Tahsildar, 3.atisii Janigir, Distriot Champa-J*ijgif"(CG). 3V 4) C'nief yunicipat Qfficer, Munteipal Corporation, Janjgir, Tahsil Janjgir, District Champa-Janjgir (CG). i'1. ' ' ' ' . . . ' " ' Nagar Paiika Parishad, Janjgir- Naita, through - PFesicient Smt. Matti Ratre, Tah. Janjgir, DisS. Champa-JanJgir(CQ). ,St~ Petition under Articie 226/227 of theConstitutionof Indla) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satssh K.Agnihotri, J. Shri Ra'/'sh Vsrrr'a, counsej for ths Betltionsr. Shri Aroind Dubey, Panei Lawyer forthe State. (Passedon 16-11-2007) Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this Court against action of demoiition conducted by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. Accordingiy, the petitipn was fiied with the Tollowing prayer. "(i) To restrict'the respondents to demolish the constructed area and Badi ! portion of the petitioner and to take action in accordance with the law. i ?[p issue the nature of mandamus eommanding ths stop the action of demolitioh without furthgr / 2- ; :rSju •l. (iii) toss of time and act in aGcordance with the provision of Municipal Corporation Act and Revenye Code. Damages, caused by demolition.inaction of arbitrar/ manner by the respondente. (iv) Grant any other reiief which may be dsemed just and proper by the Hon' ble Court. (v) Aviiard, cost of the petition." 2) Admittedly, no interim relief was granted and accordjng to iearned counsel appearjng for the petitioner, demoiition had atready taken piace, except smaii portion of the structure in dispute. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner further submits that since the property in dispute has been demolished as removai of alieged encroachmenl without issuing show cause nottee, She oFiginal structure be restored to the petitioner or the petitioner be granted appropriate compensation for loss of his structure. 3) Be that as it may, there seems to be a dispute v/ith regard to the owner-ship offhe property. According to iearned counsei appearing for the State, i{ was a case of encroachment ofthe Government !and. Thls CQUrt cannot decide the question of disouted facts with regard 'to the owner-ship or possession of the properiy. Further, this Court can aiso not direct to assess the comDensation and pav to the Detitioner. Ths petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate forum for deciaration of tiUe •and possession of properiy and further for compensation, if so advised. 4) In visw of the foregoing, this petition has become infructuous and the same 1s disposed of. However, liberty is rsserved to the petitioner to take recourse to any other forum that may be avaiiabie to him under the provisions of Saw. j. cj, ' l satish^Agai6o^ j