H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4350 of2004 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Dr. Devendra Singh Saluja, aged about 50 years, son of late S.S. Saluja, Otthopedic Cerrtre, resident of Jail Road- Raipur (Chliattisgarh). 2. Bhuwaiilai Choydhari, aged a-bout 53 years, soii oflate C.L. Choudhari, Lekha Try Comers, resident of RaJa Talab, Gandhi Chowk, .Raipur (Chliattisgarh). 3. Krishna Sen, aged about 37 years, son ofShri K.R. Sen, Alaiikar Mitaa-o, Hair Ciittmg Saloon, resideiit ofBhala Chowk, Near Chhoti Line, Fafadih, Distt. Raipur (Cl-iliattisgarh). 4. Jitendra Tank, aged about 40 yeai^. son of Hemchand Tarik, Taiik EleclricalB, resideiit ofSonibada, Fafadih, Distt. Raipur (Cfahattisgarh). 5. Prabhulal, aged about 55 yeai^, son of Sliri.., P.P. Electricals, resident bf Soni Bada, Fatadih Distt. Raipur (CIilialtisgarh). Ashok Kumar Israni- aged about 25 years, son of Pahumal, Deepak Paaii Bhandai^ Naliar Para, Near Gopi Aata Chakki. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 6. VER^'US 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, tiirough the Secretary, Departmeiit of Local Self Dau Kal^m Sixigh Bhawan, Mantralaya. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. State of Cliliattisgarh througli the Secretary, Departoient of Revenue, DK8 Bhawan, Raipur (ClAattisgarh). 3. The Mumcipal Coiyoration Raipur, througli Chief Mumdpal OfFicer, Raipur (Cliliattisgarh). 4. The Collector, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 5. Tlie Tahsildar, Distt. Raipur (ClAattisgarh). 6. Prabhulal Jethwa, aged about 58 years, son of late Devramji Jethwa, resident of Jetliwa Bada, FafadUL Distt. Raipur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONS'nrUTION OF INDIA) (SB:_HOTatMeMr.Sa^sh_K,A®i&otrLJ,) PT^ent : S'hri Prashant Jaiswai, Sr.' Advocate with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Sliri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Riiiki Ta.mrakar, Advocate fbrthe respondent No. 3. ORALOMUER (Passed on 9 day of Feferaary, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearmg tinally. ^ .'^ 1. The petitioners claim to be tenants of the shops situated at Fafadih., Gumgovind Singh Chowk^ Raipur, under respondent No. 6. It is alleged that the State Govemment, in order to beautify the capital city of Raipur, had taken steps to evict the petitioners from tlie shops. It is aven'ed that there is an undertaking between the respondent No. 1 to 5 on the one hand and respondent No. 6 on the otlier hand to pull down the building where the petitioners' shops are situated and the Govemment would allot altemative iand of equal area by respondent No. 1 to 5 m tavour of respondeiit No. 6 cn the adjacent land. It is complamed that though tlic petitioners are m a^ctual possession oftbe shops, they were not called for discussion, nor they were made parties to the understandmg arrived at between the respondent No. 1 to 5 on the one hand aad respondent No. 6 on the other hand. Thc petitioners have further averred that they are eaming livelihood fromthe business they carryon in the subject shops and ifthey are evicted Jfrom the shops that would aftect their source of livelihood. With the above pleadings, the petitioners have sou^i for the followmg main reliefs : "Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners pray for the following relief(s):- i. That fhis Hon'ble Court may kiiidly be pleased to call for the eiitire records ofthe case. ii, That tfais Horfble Court may kmdly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of maiidamus directing respondents not to demolish the said premises. iii. That this Honl^le Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in fhe nature ofmandamus directing respondents to contmue over the said premises. iv. Any other reliefc as deem lit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted m the facts ajid circumstances offlie case. v. Cost ofthe petitioti be awarded." ^ ^. "ii.^' '^•:<^":K'^:S'-' >' A carefal pemsal offhe reliefs sought in this writ petition would go to show that petitioners are seekitig injunction pure and simple to protect their alleged ri^its over the subject shops m the capacity of the tenante under respondent No. 6. I am offhe considered opinion that the dispute brought before this court is essentially civil in nature and grievaiice of the petitioners is eminently a fit subject fbr a suit before the jurisdictional Court. In that view ofthe matter, there is no need for me to express aiiy opimon on merit ofthe matter. It is quite often said and reiterated by the courts that m the cases oflanded properties. declaration and injunction by way ofprivate law review would be more efficacious and comprchetisive than the mandamus that may be granted by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ court camiot be converted into a Civil Court to entertain the kind of gricvance which is brought before this court in this present case. Further, it was contended by leamed counsel for the petitioners that the remedy available before the Civil Court in the context of the case is not efficacious and it is a time consummg one. I do not think so. After 1976 amendment of C.P.C., the Civil Courts are conferred wifh extraordinary power to pass appropriate mterim orders in the case of urgencies, even before the expiry of statutory notice contemplated under Section 80 ofC.P.C. Be that as it may^ I do not find any legal basis fbrthe main reliefsou^it in this writ petition that the respondents shall be directed not to demolish the shops unless and until all of them are provided with altemative accommodation elsewhere. Such right camiot be traced from any of the provisions ofT.P. Act or any otherlaw. Y Sahu y~jy '"'•V./' .f^" 4. M view offhe foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in view ofthe facts situation ofthe case- there shall be no demolition fbr a period of fifleeti days. In the event, a suit is filed before the compctent jurisdictioxial court, within a period oftwo weeks. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge