^l NIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: aLASPUR WRIT PETITION IC\ N0.767 OF 2009 PETITIONERS 1. Lalit Jain, aged aboyt 42 years, 3/o Late Bhogilal Jaln, R/o Station Road, Lodhlpara, Ra4)ur, District RaiRiur (CG). 2. Pratap Kumar Mathani. aged about 47 years, S/o Late Shri Govind Ram Mattiani, R/o Station Road. Raipur, Dlsfrtct Ralpur 3. Gangumal, S/o Late Shri Jameysitmal Chablani, aged about 63 years, R/6 StaUon Road. Raipyr. Distrjct Raipur (CG). 4. Dinesh Kumar, aged about 41 years. S/o Parasram Lakhwani, R/o Naharp^ira, Near Old Deshbandhu Press, Rajpur. District Raipur (CG). 5. Mahesh Makhijha. S/o Late Shri 4908Ulal Makhijha, aged about 47 years, R/o StaUon Road, Raipur, District Raipur Versus RESPONDENTS 1. StateofChhatBsgarh,through$ecretary» Department of Revenue, D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipur (Ct3). 2. District Collector. DtetrictRatpur (CG). 3. Additional Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 4. Raipur Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Raipur, Disfrict Raipur (CG). (Wrft petition under Article 226 of the Constitutiw of India) Single Qench'. Hon'ble ^hri SajUsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Manindra Shwastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sunil Olwani and Shri Harsh Wardhan. Advocates for th® petitioners. Shri Alok Bakshi. Govt. Advocate for the SNe/r€®pondents No.1to3. Shri P. Diwakar. Sr. Advocate with Shri Sanjay K. Aorawal. Shri Kashif Shakeel and Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advoeates for the respondent No.4. ORALORDER (Passed on this 9I" day of February, 2009) -L- IANo.3 This is an application for amendment in writ petitton. It is ordered. as prayed for. 2) By this petjtion, the petitfoners seek foltowing reliefs: "10.1 To issue a writ resfraining the responctents from disturbing peaceful possession ofthe petitioners herein over the nazul lands. 10.2 To issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to show under what aythortty they have acted on the aforesakl dates and occasions as stated herein-above and for the threats extended by them to the petihoners herein; 10.3 To issue a writ of Prohibition and Restraint permanently restraining them from putting their above-mentioned threat of demolitjon jn any manner whatsoever; 10.4 To declare that the petitioners are in lawful possession ofthe Nazul Lands in Question and their possession, therefore, cannot |>e disturbed in any manner by the respondents herein. 10.5 To pass such other order/orders and/or flive such other direction/ directions as the justice of the case may demand; and 10.6 To grant <ull costs of these proceedings to the petitioners and direct the respondents to pay the same besides bearing their own costs in full." 3) On hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and ©ven otherwise, it is admitted case that the land in dispute is a nazul land. Learned counsel appearing for the petftioners submits that the Corporation cannot remove the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are encroachers. as it is a nazul land and there was no notice or order by the State Government mentioning that the possesston of the petitioners is as encroachers. 4) Provision^ under Sections 305. 306, 307 & 322 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (forshortttthe Act 1956") makes jt ctear y%, ^ '^ 1 '^ s Gowri that 'tf any part of a buikling projects beyond the regylar line of a public street, either as existing or as determined for the futur^ ort^yond the front of immediately adjoining buUdings the Corporatipn may giy@ notice to the owner of the property to remove the projected part of area or remove the same on payment of compensation. 5) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners further sybmits that even for invoking jurisdiction under Sections 305, 306. 307 & 322 of the Act, 1956 there should be proper procedure of law. The respondent Corporation has not taken any steps under provisions of law. 6) Shri Dhwakar. tearned senior counsel appearing for the resp<?ndent No.4/Corporatrion, submits that no steps shall be taken against the .petitioners and land in disputed possessed by the petitioners without following due process of law. 7) tn view of the foregoing. the question raised herein cannot be decided at this stage. Accordingly, the petition stands djsposed of. 8) Consequently, jnterim order passed earlier, if any, stands discharsed and all the pending applications also stand disposed of. 9) Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties only after incorporating the necessary amendmente in the petition. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge