^Pi^ •kv BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (CANo^S^ /2011 Petitioner l^^y ...-•: 1 ^^^ '^ Av ^y/y ;y Respondents ^^•^v ?xc°B%.(^x i^/ J o j &D. [^jtl^- ^ V:iv. ' /f l^^,c1 ^:Chandermal Relwani, (Since dead) - Through his son Kanhaiya Lal Relwanj, S/o. Late Chandermal Relwani, aged about 48 years, occupation - business (Grocery shop), Ward No. 9, Nagar Palika Parishad - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Kanhaiya Lal Relwani, S/o. Late Chandermal Relwani, aged about 48 years, occupation - business (Electronic shop), Ward No. 9, Nagar Palika Parishad - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (CG) VERSUS 1. ^" State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Deptt of Revenue/ Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) ^' 2. The Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^- 3. 4: The Collector, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) The Superintendent of Police, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) •^' 5. The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Division - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh „ (C.G.) 6. The Tahsildar - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 7. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) / 8. The Station House Officer, Police Station - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (CG) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 7385 OF 2011 Chandermal Relwani & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vivek Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 6 & 8. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No.7. ORDER (Passed on this Q8tn day of December, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the impugned notice dated 09.11.2011 (Annexure P/1 & P-2) issued by the respondent No.7, /.e. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Pal'ika Parishad, Kharsia, District Raigarh, whereby, the petitioners have been asked to remove their structure situated over the land in disputed, alleged to have been constructed illegally, within a period of two days. It was further made clear that if the structure was not removed, the same shall be demolished with force. 2. Shri Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the petitionere submits that the petitioners cannot be thrown out on the basis ofthe above notice, as the petitioners have not been afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned notices may be quashed. 3. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7/Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia, submits that no further demolition shall be done without affording the petitioners proper opportunity of hearing and considering their response to the notice. The petitionens shall be issued fresh notices granting reasonable time to respond to put forward their cases. 4. On perusal of the impugned nottoes, it appears that the petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing to establish asto whether 2 the alleged structur^ in dispute are authorized or unauthorized as the case of the petitioners are that they have been residing there for a long period, on proper authorization. 5. The petition involves disputed question of facts in regard to the fact asto whether the construction over the dispute land are authorized or unauthorized. This Courl, in exercise of its writjurisdiction cannot decide the above stated dlsputed facts on the basis of avernnents made in the pleadings. Granting two days time to remove the alleged unauthorized construction was no opportunity as some reasonable time ought to have been given to the petitioners. In cases, where demolition had already taken place, the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to appropriate forum for grant ofcompensation/damages, ifso advised. 6. Since no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, th©impugned notices dated 09.11.2011, are quashed. However, the respondent No. 7 ie. Chief Municipa! Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia, is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and after examining the case of the petitioners, may pass appropriate order, if so advised. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge o ashoK