P.».W.Q- ytas^'' ^^1^·^^J ^^ ^^fE30:-- si—•-"""" C^ V- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P(C)No. IL-I'^ of !§nii:ii6- • <; u w y.r&igsi S&SWfSt PETITIONER RESPONDENTS KrUshna Kumar Tamrakar, aged about 62 years, S/o Shri Sakharam Tamrakar, R/o Luchk0para Chowk, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, (Revenue), Raipur(C.G.) Raipur 3. The Collector, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) ^ 4.' The Nazul Officer, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ^5. Dr. B.K. Sao, Luchkipara, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) WRIT PET1T10N UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .<!;?''::•>"% ^r"^ '' f ^ ^'.^ 9 S & '•-.-.tas^i g },/ ^ ^ s!!s^/:^y fflGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (O No. 142/2010 PETITIONER : Krishna Kumar Tamrakar Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Sinha, PL for respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Santosh Yadu, counsel for respondent No.5. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA ORAL ORDER (24.11.2010) Undisputedly, the petitioner has encroached over a part of public land and has constructed a septic tank on the said area. When objections were raised petitioner moved application for grant of pennanent lease over the area occupied by him. His application was rejected by the Commissioner, Raipur and thereafter by the State Govemment. In the earlier writ petition bearing M.P. No.4572/1993 a direction was issued that Ihe petitioner's case for grant of lease be considered sympathetically as he has already invested good amount iu constmction of septic tank as also for the reason that the constmction is underground. L (2) State Govemment has again rejected petitioner's prayer for ;rant oflease by order Annexure P-1 which is impugned in this writ petition. -» ^ r ri (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of the earlier order passed by the High Court the authorities should have sympathetically considered the petitioner's prayer for gra.nt of lease, however the application has been rejected without considering the inconvenience which the petitioner may suffer and that the construction of septic tank is underground and members of public are not to be putto inconvenience by said constmction. (4) Leamed counsel for the respondents have argued that the petitioner has encroached over area situated on public lane and have raised construction of septic tank and has moved an application for grant oflease on 195 sq.ft. ofland. (5) Leamed counsels would submit that tfae subject construction has been made on a part of public lane and members of public are facing problem. It is also submitted that because of vehicular trafBc and movement of heavy vehicles any untoward incident may happen and therefore rejection of prayer for grant of lease cannot be faulted vvith. (6) After perosal of the impugned order it would appear that the subject land is a part ofNazul plol No.648, New No. 151, Nazul Sheet No.45-A and is recorded as public land in the revenue records. Members of public cannot be allowed to raise construction of septic tank on public lane. If encroachment of such nature is permitted by ^rant oflease it will encourage members ofpublic to make similar encroachment by same analogy and citing example of grant of lease a MqsiW^mn^ Bllswd -//PS •psssiiusip /(qsjsq si pire S]rej uoppsd sqj^ (§) •ssB3(joyam'S joj la/isid svp. guipafsj Aq Atipg9{(i AUB psnimiuoo ^ou scq }.U3iuuj3AO{) sms sqj, (4) •susiSXq pu^ qipaq ureiurem pire .raiBM ireop A(ddns o^ uoqaflsiuimpB pdraronuj gq^ JQJ iusiqo.id s^gjo ABUI qoiqM JS^BM ps^uiureiuoo jo aS.reqosip pup (ios poj iHp(B9( psSBm^p aq .fcui jps^i ^av^ aq} ss{3iq9A ^ABsq jo ^uaaiSAoai jo lanoooB uo ssnBosq sroa(qojd snojsiunu afeaio ppoM gu^i oijqnd ao 3{H^ opdss jo uoqonqsuoo 'ssiMJisqio usAg -jsuoiiiisd gq^ o^ ^-