1 c..V \s0/' BEFORE THEHON'BLE HIGHCOURTOFJUDICATURE.CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (C.G.l . i IN THE MATTER OF W.P.NO. ^ 6 <3) ^2001 BETWEEN 7 Petitioners 1. M/S. Mangilal Pagaria.Builders and Contractors.A Firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, Represented through Susheel Chandra Pagaria, Partner, Pagaria House, Near Bus Stand, Jeewan Beema Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) ArihantAssociates, A Partnership , Firm registered underlndian i/v \..•'i""f rf Partnership Act, Represented through ^. .••'J^.t''/ Gulab Chand Jain, Partner, Devendra IL \^ 1 " ' ^'7.J^'-"1?r:A ' Nagar Sector I. C-137 Raipur. s^ .>n. •"''"'i':v^.'(<7'~ V VERSUS 2. w ?•-<*•/ K7 ^ //' ^v (ss'-" ';...rI*?' Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgrah Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Nazul OfFicer, Collectorate, Raipur(C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FQR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OFMANDAIVIUS/CERTIORARI AND/OR FOR ORDERS IN NATURE OFWRITS. THE PETITIONERS MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS |.)NDER:- &. PARTlfcULARS OFTHE PETITIONERS. .-/ mf i il »' «?i!-HC-22 FwT '^qTFFq', '^Ti]-^Tgj t^?T!7:irTJJ WERTfBTOrg;' V^ 2(M •^.a' V^Vl 'EmCT V fsW TfSrKTC ^3)f?OT SiF"S WJP.NO ()(SC~^/2001 12nS/23i^ Frtiaoner/s by Shri l<dt^yAJ- ll>s<'^;u:u^-^ i'W. S^sponden'r / Stai.e b'; Cr. N.K. Shukla, leariied Dv.A.G. Muruapal C'orporE'tio-iji by Shri Manidra ShrivaSLSi'.a, A;:!vo("h' ] Hea'~d. ! 2) This matter w^s he&rd ar.alogously with other ronnec..i.-d matters because the coinrp.onjij-i-e&tion invo'ved is regaraing demoiitiori >-if buildings constructed ille^ally / without permission or againsi pe.rmiss;on. tn certain casiis ; ;s dileged 'diat constriicticn is not 3LCor;:^ng to maps and chantre of useriha'^ ba"R made ift some cases. It is furi-hpr i —.——- -;. alleged that construction s<j> made is against the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, M.P. Nasar Tatha Grem Nivesh Adhiniy.ini. 1 1973 and M.P. Bhumi V'kasj Niyam, 1984. It ;s further alleged that ai certain places road width and. buiiding iines have not been ma'ntaii-ied causing vauoi!s riifficuities •rtSijJ'ng problern of drainage, sev/age, storf [qtt St'3'1 >;!. [ [f\3') .'?[R?I»f>I fir-ira? sirS'1 ?bHl<^ 'HT^T } ^sj --qraitTq, t5~oW1s. T'^r^p <M!c>yi '-sa WERTf 'giTTra? V-l 2W Tg^a" 3-n^T ?TBTW Tlfs • • ^- •I • '•*l--lii-t'il7T 'qmCT '? feZT <F~dW! ^siNq w^v of water, pollution of wate|r and sii etc. whirh results in denia] of civii amenities, dumage oj: ruad'. J2:id traUif ^usrn.;ction. 3) 0;i.i.''sel for tf;e petidoner sabmits that 0-1 i:!~» grounc! '•/ a'ii-ged coiistruai.in of hiaiphig as in'.Ki<3>'.ined above, chang- c:' user aiio f ottier fhings dymo'inon is !i:''-!ng opprenended and directed. It is a;so f 1 coRt'?ridfcd that in eertein ct's'^s o&ences have been compouftde;' and ;r! sorne cases applications for adopting the retum alread compounding have been made. Counsei K.'I the State and the responden^s oppose tt'fc petii'i.on and have filed the retir'T aiid in the cases where reta^ms are not tiled, request has been made for i7 filpd. It 's pointed out that this Coiirt has nassed detaiied order in Wdii. Petition l'jo.716/200.[ v/hich is .'cgis'ierei! .-.s Citizen of Bilaspur Vs. Mu^tdpal Corporation, Bjlaspur. A copy of th? said order has been placed cjn record. 4) Counsel for th^ petitioners subniit thai; 'n some cases ihere s:- dispute regarding floor ratio Area between Raipur Development Aiithority anc Municipal Corporarion. It is submitted that aceording to Raipur DeveioomeBl plan the floor ratio area is 2.5 jwhersas accofdina to Municipal Corporation it is [Trr^ ^iy' ,:X1-HC-22 <f snisi^ii f!;-ii«tisn^i ai^ict> ^Fe^i 731 ^ir-iiriq^ ii'aTFPTs, |c«?lii-l4T 3flt?T -q^? 1-ffRdT **<!* tr'[ 2o<i 31K?I^RnW(rf?? .. 3 . ^f^lcT^r-T ^r^^-ff ^ 'fe^t ^T 3TRTO SIT^I 1.5. In those cases this questiijin may also be ralsed which will be considered and d";;i0':d OG its o'vn sients w at;d;,rcia&;e witb lav". ( 5) Counsel for ihp Cornoration / Sate and other a'/.thorities / T respondent's poinfed out encioachinent in violation ol arisen such as pollutfon of a; that because of iilegal const.'uction / building laws difficulties and pTpblenis have r and water. obstruction in •'leaning of drains, stoppage of flow of water, '{enial of dvic amenities and damage cf roads. It also causes traffic obsbr^ction and hindrance in smoofb trait:<,'. Tnis Couit had passed orders petitioris have been tiled b from time to time on 17/8,'"2001 and on 28/9/2001. 6) The Apex Coijrt in Ahmedaoad Municipal Coiporation Y;:-, NawabKhanGulab Khan ahd others (AIE 1997 SC 152) has ueait with '±i;' matter in great detail. The j^idgment has been read in extenso. 7) Counsel for tljie respondents pointed out fhat some of !h! 1 the petitioners merely on appreher.sios^ T;-;f respundents/Corporation ^nd authorities have inspected spoi gp-d also made enquiries regarding tljie construction. [^ ^^ Xl-HC-22 ^~5? ^iqicft), e>Tirl<H'i6, [<<dl'Hy W*«fT*I(R) "WT. 200 •fq^sr' an^r^fii 3n§?i shHT^'Hf^cT sn^i ?^itWHf?c? .. 4 .. chl^f'4'M t})4-Idf 'H fe1^t <f^^K ^rsrraq 371^1 8) Counsel for the re^pondents/Corporation further submittei Ai:; th.~ p.itii.oi^ere ni./e rash^d to tiw Kigb Cour; y'ic;-,.,ii ^'&pLitfci ques.-ions of facts are invoiv,.'d ajii1 earh case rei'ts o-i •-.leterinir'ti.ticn o ti.ose facts. In cs.'tam cases Iwhei'f; .'.otires eire p.c-t ..>ery»d bhey av pren'iah.'re as weil us i;i other (jases tfie Corporafcon aiicl ihe aii^boriti; hotice to tfie uetitioners wi IE th-..- ^ cass rc-tpurm.;; dem'.'ilition will ssrve where notices have already be^n reply supported 'n.-- affidavii^ considered and dedded on its cjwn merit in accordance with law. If fn. sen'ed. Ti'se petitionere rnay nov^ fii: and d:x:umenfs etr., which v.iU bi petitioners give in writing wifh Mfidavit on points specified tftat thev ars i desirous of being ^.t'ard, they sh^ll also be hea.'-d by e Corooration ai i;; the authoritv coni.emed as far as possible. 9) We have considerejd the submissions msde by rival parties gone through the record and tiie orrter sheets have been recorded in th. cases from time i-o time so as to provide opportunity to all parties tc' pla;. their respective v'.ew poi-'it. It is not neressary to reiterate Qssm here or.i; ; again as they foj-m pai;. ot record; In our opinion ques'rions soug.nt to be '^ ^SP' XI-HC-22 ^SE[ -i)i<)ii;.)^, ^w'i'i;, hwvy 3IT^T 7^q? *<1*<WI «hW«h TFl, 200 fqr^y' sn^i^n R-fi.'tl 3)^1 5ti^ ^f^fl 311^1'gtaTWHfe^ * • -> [• • !^1^fta<fT'^'l:l!^<'1l'^ f^^l <^l^!< ^T ST^FF 3{T^?T raised in the petitions are dispujted questions of fact which cannot be gons into by this Cou'-t ir. wrttjurisdijcriop. 10'; Having thus corisi]dei'ed the totality ot the drcun;stK.'..';a<! Wv direct as rnder: ! . a) Wlierever ttttiie is apprehension and notice has not been i^sued by fhe Corporatii-'n or th>-~ concemed ajuthority notice shail be Issueil and 1 opporhinity ishall be given t&igg repiy and after reply is fileA fhe matter shall be considered and < i decided on its own merits in accordance with law. ) 1 b) Wherever nOtice has been given and reply has i been filed f^irther oppnrtunity is graiited to the petitioners tjo file reply alongwith doc'nmenls/ affidavits if feo desired which shall be considered and decidedlon its own merits in accordance with law. j i -'--':• ^-f.:-. 7 i XI-HC-22 sn^i^i ftiiti sn^? sh^ri^ yfia ~S:3! ^[ilMi-l, ^nS\w\6, hv}Wy. *1|t|WI thwai '^ 2M aii^r ^EgrwBfta E:ii|-^i<n'4l'1 HW^\ ^ ^^ <f^^.l< ^afpgiian^T c) In cases wh^re the petitioners desire to be heard and ma..-;es | such request cu'y suppo;;t(;.-? I'Y affidavil- on pointe !:::' ivhich they want to D'-' heard, ;:hej Corporaliop or the cniiter-';?d t authorides ^l'iall h.;ar fiiem as e.-'rieditiousiy as 1 possible an^ the pafties shaii render d-je t 1 cooperation.l d) Till the noti!tes are served and reply, if a.i;y, is filed status qjuo as on today i.e. 12.10.2001 shall be maintainfid Ijiy the parties. e) The Uberiy /petitioners |however, is given to the p>etitio.~ier to remove on their ovvn encroachmerkt or the obstruction in suitable cases if so adlvised Corporation/i so as to satisfy the j'concerned authorities to the extent XI-HC-22 sn^r^ii r<;-<i+. 3iit?i *t]i=b'HfttI \ rsnr* ^ ^•y'-:."ti '.•'. -»:. ~s:si ^|t)]<rf^, ts^iyiiG, faini^y wv?nvhwch 'FT^ 200 fq^T' 3IT^?I •?OTWBfer ! ^wld'!i1-l ^Ms-fi ^ fs^t <h^{ • ^ ^ • ^'ari^TOsil^l possible anc^ authorities shal! decide the matter on iis ov.i; 4i;Frii in accurdan..'" with law ta3iii;g ^ into tfus asp^tc!. in tX)nsidera;Wi! as .vell. f) So lar as !'i;i^ig of reply is co^ccjrned, this C;,t;:t i was indirie4 to grant time to file repiy by V Novt-mber. ;2P01, however i-c,u?!:iel for &^ petition?R \psays for exterisior. o' titTie, Accordutgly; ticie is extended in the ends of justice- Le( reply be filed on or before 9th Novembpr. 2p01 11) With these ofcsei'|vations and direcnor.s i-Ais pe(irio:i ; disposed of. Qriginal document^ filed by the psrties may be ret'/irnsd afte the photocopies are filed ors record. The security, if deposited, b refiinded to the'petitioner as perirules. Certified photocopy fs yer njies. Sd/- QuefJustice Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge