IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT {BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (c) No‘ MOM} OF 2009 PETITIONER : “’Sm’r. Kamarjahan, wife 0f Shaikh Shahnaz, aged abou‘r 5O years, residenf of Old Bus Stand, Raipur (06.) /, 1. The Municipal Corpora’rion, Raipur Through i’rs Commissioner, Malviya Road, i, Raipur. 2. The Commissioner, Municipal CorporaTion, Malviya Road, Raipur. \1 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONfiTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COIURT OF CHHATT!SGARH!: BILASPU I WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4343 OF 2009 PETITIONER Smt. Kamarjahan Versus The Municipal Corporation, Raipur & Another RESPONDENTS Post for pronounement of the order on Qgfé‘ay of Ocber, 210 5d]- tis . Agni ude f R c to 0 I I Sah K ihotr ” Jg 1 I I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4343 OF 2009 PETITIONER Smt. Kamarjahan r Versus RESPONDENTS The Municipal Corporation, Raipur & Another (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of‘the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Advocate Shri H.B. for Agrawai, the respondents. Sr. Advocate with Ms Pragya Singh, ORDER (Delivered on this ggg‘ay of October, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action 'of demolition of the structure on the land in question by the respondent authorities was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. further a direction restraining the respondent authorities, their agents, servants and employees from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question and restore back the structure of the petitioner on the land in question. V The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was granted lease/licence on a land admeasuring 462.50 sq.ft, situated at Old Bus Stand, Raipur, on the licence fee of Rs.2/- per sqtft. in total Rs.924/— and on payment of 50% premium by notice dated 28-4—1999 (Annexure — P/t). Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner obtained a certificate to establish auto‘ repairing shopsvide Annexure —‘P/2 and further electricity connection on permanent basis was also obtained, as is I t i @ vident from Annexure - P/3. The petitioner constructed a structure and began running a vehicle repair shop in the name and style of Mis Niyaz Automobiles. According to Shri Sharma, leaned counsel appearing‘for the petitioner, without any notice or intimation some persons of the respondents — Municipal Corporation, .Raipur (for short “the respondents/Corporation“) came to the shop in question on 1-8-2009 and demolished the entire structure by use of 3D machines and took away the garage material and other goods lying thereon. Subsequently, on payment of penalty of Rs.1,000/—, the tools etc. seized by the respondents/Corporation were returned to the petitioner vide Annexure — P/8. The petitioner filed a protest letter dated 7-8-2009 (Annexure ~— P/6) and further has lodged a complaint under the provisions of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 7—8-2009 (Annexure — P/7) to the poiice. Shri Sharma would next submit that the structure in question was demolished without a notice or intimation to they petitioner, which would tantamount to infringement of the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of lndia. On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/Corporation, would submit that the petitioner has failed to deposit the required premium and r the lease rent pursuant to the notice dated 28-4—1999 (Annexure — P/1). The structure of the petitioner was unauthorized and illegal on the land in question. The petitioner and her husband were sent notices dated 13-7-2009, 18~7-2009 and 27-7-2009 (Annexures — R/2—to R/4). ln absenceof any response from the ) e v petitioner and her husband, the structure was demolished, as the petitioner and her husband were the encroachers on the respondents/Corporation land. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition may be dismissed. i I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The petitioner has failed to produce any document to establish the fact that the petitioner has deposited the premium and the rent of Rs.924/— perv month, pursuant to the notice dated 28-4-1999 (Annexure — P/1), as submitted by Shri Agrawal. Thus, on the basis of notice dated 28-4—1999, it cannot be held that the- .petitioner has acquired any right as licencee on the land in question. 7. The registration under the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 and further obtaining the electricity connection in the alleged garage does not establish the fact that the possession 'of the petitioner on the land in dispute and thereafter construction thereon was on the basis oflease/licence granted by the respondents/Corporation. '.With regard to intimation/notice by the respondents/Corporation before taking, the action to demolish the structure, copy of the note sheet has been submitted by the respondents/Corporation,V wherein it has been clearly stated that the notices were issued under the provisions of Sections 322 & 323 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short “the Act, 1956”), and were declined by the petitioner and her husband and thereon a Vdirection was made to affix the said notice on the premises in dispute. 7g , g 'The notings on the flip side of the notices dated 11-7—2009, 15-7-2009, 18—7-2009, 23—7-2009, 27—7—2009 and 28—7-2009 make it clear that the attempt was made by the respondents/Corporation to serve the notice‘ which failed. it appears on account of the fact that the petitioner declined to accept the notice, and, as such, the contention of Shri Agrawal, deserves to be accepted. Shri Agrawal, would submit that a list of all the shop owners, on the basis of lease/licence granted by the respondents/Corporation, has been prepared, which is at page No.11 of the return, and it’indicates that the petitioner was never granted possession of the land in questionon the basis of licence. Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that the petitioner’s possession was on the basis of licence/lease granted by the respondents/Corporation. It has also not been established by the petitioner that notices were never sent to the petitioner, before impugned action of demolition of unauthorized structure on the land in question was taken. The contention of Shri Sharma that the notices were sent under the provisions of Sections 322 & 323 ofthe Act, 1956. The notice under Section 322 can only be issued for the prohibition of obstruction in streets. In the case on hand, the land is not situated on any street, therefore, any notice issued under ' Sections 322 & 323 of the Act, 1956 cannot be taken as a notice to remove the structure. Be that as itmay, once the petitioner has came to know that there is a notice or intimation to remove thestructure constructed unauthorisedly &"illegally, the petitioner ought to have taken immediate steps to file reply explaining her case before the alleged demolition took place, but nothing has been done by the petitioner. Subsequently, the protest letter dated 7—8—2009 was filed and a complaint was made to the Police Station. vFor the aforesaid discussion and analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition, as sought by her. However, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to a competent jurisdictional Court to establish the fact of possession and for damages/compensation, if any, and if so advised. 14. ln the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be , and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K.Agnihotri ‘ r Judge Gown