“my ‘ / v ()0 , J‘W/l’m V { » f‘aN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. No. ‘ggg /2001 AJAY UMAR SINDHWANI Son of Shri Ramjidas Sindhwani, adult resident of Jawahar Nagar, Raipur SM'I‘. ANITA SINDHWANI wife of Shri Aj ay Sindhwani, adult “g residen't of Jawahar Nagar, Raipur PETITIONERS VERS SU RAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, a body Corporate constitued under the relevant provisions Vof M.P. Municipal Corporation 3r. Act, 1.956 having its office atW" g Malviya Road, Raipur through V‘3W‘5 the Commissioner, Raipur $3“) 1 .C/ “THE COMMISSIONER, Raipur Municipal Corporation,” Raipur RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF PRHOHIBITION MANDAMUS ETC. AND OR FOR ORDER S ND/OR FOR THE DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE ‘OF THE WRITS A }I J, ~»f¢rm,rw,/~. p K f‘ v n KLHC‘22 ya :mqim, ‘r zj 3313??? “"V am mm $3 2(m\ I (18> v 2) is matter ws eard anaiogougly with other connected I matters because the cornmenirm invo ed is regarding demoution uf bldings constructe illliy without permission or against ui d e‘a / eged that cstruzion i3 nat accor :iil onr d V \o maps and change of user hashe made in e cases. It‘is further t zm som leged that construction made is agains e, provisions {J MP. Munipl Corporation Act, Nagar Ta‘za Gra Nivesh Adhinivam. ica MP tl m 1973 and M.P. Bhumi Vikai Niyam, i984, 1t is further alleged that a certain places road width ari buding lines have not been maii‘ztained causing variou diffiuies cding problem of drainage, sewage, store s clt in3lu erission: certain cas pm in e s l d il l l i i {Lite éf‘iaa Th $ h I mem J v 5 al s t th i 3m W Few m m Hf?! WI mm 21% ' W “. €sum W 7 nmm 311W 2 § E x a; wJjPNQ 13$ /2001 12;:9/2001 i Pentiener/s by Shrx' ‘ ?. W; WT$ - Resp-ancient /’ State by'Dr. NK. Shukla, learned Dy.A.G. Municipal Coroorafio by Shri Manidra Shriva3iaw. Advoca'na l Heard . 3a WHHRW’ &a%w& WWW m? HEW f WW T5i 200 fax_7g v R Wwmitizdém $ aimmatwfg‘a N 2 i. $WWm I x 0f water, pollution of wateL and air etc. which results in denial of Civ ‘i l : amenities, damage of roads hm iraffic O’CgU'uciwn, 3) C'imnsei for Jw petitioner submits that or: the ground 0 alleged construction 0f buil ing as mentioned above, change of ueer and: - other things demolition is eing apprehended and directed. It is also contended. that in vermin c‘tism offences have been compounded "and iii some cases applications for compounding have been made. Counsel {or the State and the respondenis oppose the petition and have filed the return and in the cases where returns are not filed, request has been made for adopting the return already filed. It is pointed out that this Court has passed detailed order in Writ Fetition No.716/2001 which is registered as Citizen of Bilaspur Vs. Municipal Corporatiom Bilaspgr. A copy J the said order has been placed on record. 4) Counsel for the petitioners submit that in some cases there is l dispute regarding floor ratio idea between Raipur Development Authority and Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that according to Raipur Developmeet plan the floor ratio area is 2.5 whereas according to Municipal Corporation it is il ; m mm Wma, 16mm? 3%lé3! Wag; / XLHC~22 mm WW WW‘EWwW iwmm 8) Counsel for the respondents/Corporation further submitte<‘ vsa rushed to the High Court though d’iitpute-x’ than tile petiu‘uners questiom of facts are involved and earh case rests' 0:1 deterxmnaticm o: rhose fads. In certain cases where .vwfices are aw. served thev ap premature as well ras in’aoiher glases the Corporation and the autbaritie: r requiring demolition will serve hotlce to the petitionars andrin 31% rasek where notices have. already been served. The petitioners may now filr. reply supported by affidavits and documents etc.. which will bé considered and decided on its wn merit in accordance with law. If ths petitioners give in writing with fidavit on points specified that theV an desirous of being heard, they sh l also be heard by the Corporation or h- the authority concerned as far asipossible, 9) We have consider the submissions made by rival partiest gone du‘ough the record and thé order sheets have been recorded in th: l cases from time'to time so as to rovide opportunity to all parties to plad their respective View point. It is;not necessary to reiterate them here onu again as they form part of recordl In our opinion questions sought to be v: 3 i v l XI»HC-22 Ea W, am, W y I W WW W1 200 mg ’ mm m 311w mm?! away:mm ma WW am £i may; wW . . S . . raised in the petitions are dispujited questions of fact which cannot be gom mm by this Court in writ juxisu i 10) ‘r. "Eng thus considered the totalitv of the circm‘nstancee v, i i dirzect as under : I l a) Wherever t §ere Is apprehension and notice has not: been i sued by the Corporation cgi' the concerned thority notice shall be issued and opportunity shall be given to tile reply and utter reply is file the matter shall be considered and decided on iis own merits in accordance with law. i l I b) Wherever notice has been gven and reply has i been filed féirther opportunity is granted to the petitioners tlo file reply 'alongwith domments/ l affidavits if ’ho desired which shall be considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. l Corporation} concerned authorities to the extent 1 i l XI-HC—22 man mm WW mmanvfaa Wamuifg‘am i3w$aqaném u 6 1.. i C) In cases where the petitioners desire to be heard i i and magges‘such requesi. uuiy Suppw":’; .1, I i i affidavit on point: :xr: which they want t0 be 1 heard, Eei Corporatior ar the come? er} authoriijes Jhell than as ; I K i near as exaeditiuus‘iy as possible an'p‘ the pa sna‘d renri-er due $ cooperation. d) Till the notiles are served and reply, if anyy is filed status o as on today i.e. 12.10.2001 shall be e) maintained lit] the parties. ! l The liberty owever, is given to the petitioner /petitioners' to remove on their own encroachme t the obstruction in suitable z t or c3359 if so ad ised so as to satisfy the XI—HC-22 MEI WW WWWfiWIfm‘—gt .. 7 H ésaf—«Tqm ISnr* these obsei'vationti and directions this petitioi': i; 11) With disposed of. Original documen filed by the parties may be returned afte; the photocopies are filed on grecord.“ The security, if deposited, bi refunded to the petitioner as pm! rulesi possible and authorities shall decide the matter . on [ts own. merit in acwrdal‘tce with Iaw taking inio thi< afiptfr‘t in eonsidemiion a1; welt. So far as iilirig of reply is Cianeerned, this 'i'Zuuri. i was inchne to grant time to fiie reply by 3r” 2001, however counsel fos i, November, petitioners prays for exterision of time. Accordi time is extended in the ends of n justice. Le. reply be filed on or before 9m November, F 01. t x Sdl- Certified photocopy és oer rules.