Hi'f^y f^/^s I^T ii"Si[''!i^£-E W'iw?Uf<^£ ii Aiaoi 'i fcrgwi^j^Fi^ a^i.;r^WE-i MFiM' S ii'-iuii-'i^ U^^.%.35 ow^ •UBI JEEV ^?1§ If! |s ppifiti^niar^ ^e 1 Shyam Sunder Agrawai, S/o Jagannath Agrawal, aged about 64 years, R./o Senior IVS'G No.24, Houslng Board Colony, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) . 2 Vikas Sharma S/o RP Sharma, aged about 55 vears, R/o LIG No.506, Housing Board Colony, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) ^ ^&es ir^^^^f^llts; Ss'iLi-*[ti.i'ls ilU^ufaEi,. The Municipa! Corporat'on, Durg (CG-'/ t'nrough its Commissioner, Municipa! 9( 2 The Chhattisgarh Housing Board DMsion Durg (CG), through its Executive Engineer / Estate Manager, r^-, 'd, Haamanabnpur, uun 3 Deputy Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Durg (CG) 4 The Coileetor, District Dum (CG) 5 The State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Urba" Administration and Loca! Self, DKS 13W3u; KSIpUf ^vL;) 6 The Aadlnath Shwatamber Jaln Mandir Trust Durg (CG), through its Trustee Pplitirin ^indpr Arfif1!^ ^^ft rsf 3 ^^^Jf^ £ ^§a^-^^^s:(i jf^.S a<3^3iS* saSQ'^ ^^3 Sls Present: Shri MK Bhaduri, counsel forthe petifioners. Shri Sanjay KAgrawaS, counsel for respondent No.1 Shri Sanjay Patei, counse! for respondent Mo.2. 1 Shri Praveen the State / , Deputy Government Advocate No.3 to 5. for Shri Manindra Shri Harsh Vardl Shrivastava, Senior Counse! lan, counsel for respondent No.i •tn The foiiowing order "l^u'ourt was passed t Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. i) Petitioners Shyam Sunder Agrawal and Vikas Sharm< ;laiming thsmseives to be resldents of Housing Board Coiony, 3admanabhpur, Durg, have fiied this Vtfrit Petition styied as 'Public nterest Litiaation' for the followina reliefs: "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to cal! for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petltloners from ths respondents for its kind perusai. 10.2 The Hon'bie Court may be pleased to direct ths respondent No.1 to 5 not to carr;,/ on with any construction on the reserv'ed land against the provision of approved iayout and sanctioned pian. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to impiement the provisions of the development pians of Housing Board Colony Padmanabhpur, Durg as weil as Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Dura. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents authorities not to change the !and use as spec.ified on the earmarked in the approved iayout and sanctioned plans. 10.5 T'ne Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to keep the areen best/garden ooen for ecoloaica! and environmentai baiance. ^. 1 \^ Further to direct the respondents authorities to enforce the iaw as contained in development pians. Further to prevent and forbid the respondent No.6 from usina the ibove land for Construction of Jain Temple. ^ 10.6 The Hon'bie Court may be pleased to dlrect the respondents authorities to restrain the ittegal activities of the respondent No.6 from raising any construction on the reserved land. as provide in the approved iayout and sanctioned pians bythe authorities. 10.7 The Hon'ble Court may kindiy be pieased to grant any other ancillary relief; as it may deem fit and to proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.8 Costofthepetition." 3) The dispute relates to the alleged change of user of the open iand shown as 'Segregation Strip' in map (Annexure P/1). 4) The petitioners' case in the Vi/rit Petition is that the land Jn cjuestion be Board Divis Corporation, No.6 the longs to respondent No.2 the Chhattisgarh Housing ion Durg (CG) and respondent No.1 The Municipal Durg is iliegaliy granting permission to respondent Aadinath Shwatamber Jain Mandir Trust, Durg for construction of.a Jain temple on the said piece of land. 5) Respondent No.6 the Aadinath Shvvatamber Jaln Mandir Trust, Durg, in their counter affidavit has categoricaiiy pteaded that t'ne said piece of !and belongs to the trust as the same was "purchased through a registered saie deed from the owner of the 6) The Writ Petition thus invoives disputed question of fact in regard to the ownership of the land in question. i !adma -7' We, therefore, decline to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners as 'Public Interest Litigation'. 8) The Writ Petition, therefore, is dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge