---•/" ^^Sss^sss:-^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GAKH AT BILA8PUR WMT PETITION fO No. 3123 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :\^ Sharad Kumr Middha S/o. B.L.Middha Age 30 Years R/o "Anita Watch Center" Tatyapara, G.E. Road, Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation Through Coiimussioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Throush- Collector,Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PElTnON UNDER AR1TCLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjI'ION OF INDIA Sinsle Bench : Hon'ble Justice Shrt Sattsh K. AsnUiotriL Present: Shri C.R.Sahu, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri KashifShakil, Advocate forlfae respondent No. 1. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. Advoeate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, ?. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. 2. QRDER (Passed cn 13th day ofJune, 2007} In the present matter, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated L.02.2007 (Annexure P/2) issued under Section 305(1) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, by respondent No. 1/Municlpal Corporation, Raipur for the proposed widening ofseveral roads inihe citv ofRaipur. Shri C.R.Sahu, leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioners does not want to press other points except fhat the eompensation for damages or loss occasioned by widening ofpublic street (road) be reasonable andjust. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner who is in possession of the building which is beyond the resular line of public street has no other right except ridrt to reasonable compensation for any damages or loss that may be caused as a consequences inthe process ofwidenuu oftiie public street (road). a"£3to».-.- 3: 4. The petitioner, in this petition is questiomng the basis for grant of compensation for anv damages or loss oceasioned bv them. Leamed counsel fiirther submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to invoke provisions of section 387 ofthe Act, 1956 in the event the petitioner is dissatisfied with the amount ofcompensation for damages or loss, eranted bythe respondent/Corporation. 5. Shri Kashif Shakil, leamed counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 2 do not controvert the submission made by the leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner. 6. In view offhe tbregoins, this petition is disposed ofwith liberty reserved to the petitioner to invoke provisions ofSection 387 offhe Act, 1956 for appointment of arbitrator in aceordance wtth the said provisions, if so advised. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anut