1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE N$... o.\.’5.?> 1) Prakash Chabaria Scm of Shri Shyamdash Chabaria, aged about years resident of Clqth Market Pandri, Raipur. 2) SMT. Sandhya Chhabaria wife of Shri Rajkuvmar Bhagat aged about years resident of Cloth Market, Pandri Raipur. 3)Hemant Kumar Chhabaria, son of Shri Shyamdash Chhabaria, Cloth Market Pandri, Raipur . rit Petitio W n VEREUS 1. RAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION A Body Corporate Constituted Under The Relevant Provisions Of M.P.Municipai Corporation Act, 1956 Having Its Office At Malviya Road, Raipur Through The Commissioner of Raipur 2.. THE COMMISSIONER Raipur Municipal Corporation, Malviya Road, Raipur C AND/ ETC. AW/ OR FOR ORDERS W/ OF BILASPUR 21 00 raESrIONDENTs M/ OR FOR THE IRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF THE WRITS. PETITIONERS WRIT ONSTITUTION PETITION UNDER OF INDIA ARTICLE FOR 226 THE AND ISSUANCE 227 OF THE OF S IN THE NATURE OF PRHOIBITION MANDAMUS N x Mam—22 \ Ea. WWW, WWW; WWW? \ mg?m 37.mm WRNO 933% /2oo1 i Petitioner/a hy Shri E P gh-O’J‘W‘Q, ACK’V' Respondeni / Skate by Dr. N.K. Shukia, leashed DvAG. Munic; pa} Carporatiun by Shri Mamra Shrivasi ava, AdvoCate. Heard. 2) This matter was heard analogously with ciher connected matters because the common question involved is regarding demolirion of ‘buildings constructed illegally / without permission or against oermission. In cortain cases gt is alleged that Construction is not aicordisg l to maps and chcmge oi user has been made in some cases lt is further ‘F I alleged that construction s4) made a against the provisions 0t VM.P. ’l Municipal Corporation Act, MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and M.P. Bhumi Vika Niyam, 1984. It is further alleged that a? certain places road width arid building lines have not been maintained causing various difficulties i luding problem of drainage, sewage, store rm“ mM, ma farm . mWE . :J favqa WI 2G0 . Mmmma‘ 2W i “ W‘I‘IWW? ésaqf‘zmm “5a mama, mW‘wg, 1mm. x am} um of water, pollution of wateir and air etc. whirh results in denial of civi} ! @mj iraffic obstrucLion. amenitiee, dan‘lage of roads 55) Counsel for t+e pesitioner submits that on the gs Jud of .A copy of {he , Aq Ra mmmw “ 2 n Wnm1§%@m E‘naqfi—vmeméw Mnwfr%@m $31Wam It also causes traffic obstrL lction and hindrance in smooth traffic. This from time to time on 17/8/2001 and on Court had passed orders . 28/9/2001. 6) The Apex Coulrt in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others _(AIR 1997 SC 152) has dealt with the matter in great detail. The judgment has been read in extenso. 7) Counsel for the respondents pointed out that someiof the the petitioners merely on apprehension. The petitions have been filed by respondents/Corporation and authorities have inspected spot and also made enquiries regarding the construction. 1.5. In those cases this questi< )n may also be raised which will be considered and OhidLLc .. ‘.‘."v‘,’v :‘JYHV .‘azV decici3d on its mm 1 wits in egg Corporation / State and other authorities / that because of illegal construction respondguis pointed out encroachment in violation 01 'building laws difficnlties and problems have arisen such as pollution of a r and water, obstruction in cleaning of drains, 5) Counsel for thif stoppage of flow of water, (ienial of civic amenities and damage of roaos. l, I . ...................................... HIRE! ERIE W 200 ..............................................W ................................................ I WW wm“ $awfi’vmm mmmm ‘spondents/Corporation further submittec 8) Counsel for the re: mat i-lm: p:'2titioners have :ushé’d to the i-‘iigix Cour: {ixoa‘giz ifsputex questions- of facts are mx/oivedland eagfu case rests. on detenninmion c: those facts. 1n certam waes ’hele names are not served $33; aw premature as; well as in other !ases rhe Corporatioa and thezaurhmiiie requiring demolition will serve, eotice to rre petitioners and in theme easel l where notices have already been sewed. The petitioners may now file reply supported by affidavit} and documents etc” which will b: n merit in accordance with. lawt 1f thr fidavit on points specified that they are desirous of being heard, the“; sh‘ ll also be heard by the Corporation or b"; the authority concerned as far as possible. 9) We have consider the submissions made by rival. parties gone through the record and the order sheets have been recorded in the cases from time to time so as to rovide opportunity to all parties to phat: their respective View point. it isinot necessary to reiterate them here om; again as they form part of record} In our opinion questions sought to be considered and decided on its petitioners give in writing with raised in the petitions are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gom into by ti [is (fouit in writ jairisd'ction. '10) i-Iavmg thus mm deied the tutaliiy of tht Ci s umstames v > direct as under : Wherevei ere is apprel’iension and notice has not been 1 sued by the LC Doration or the thority notice shall be‘issued. and oppormm‘ shall be giV en to iske reply and a‘ter reply is file the matter shall be comielered and deCIded on i It ia) b) concemed own merits 1n accordance With law Wherever n tice has been given and reply has been filed f rther opportunity is granted to the petitioners k file reply alongw1th documents/ affidaVits if o desu‘ed which shall be conSidered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. l v? XI—HC—zz W 200 fawx mm WW WW mmaama .. 5 WW W$¥EH ér;a1%r;uaw%¥1 .. rhg. i i l FY43 ?c éfw} Xi—Hc—22 r /’§\ f} /' L W Wm m 200 War WW WT§1€R mmmm $W m . 6 .. c) In cases whére the petitioners desire to be heard l ‘, O) i ! and makes’ such veqiies‘: ;iu‘.y supported hV i l I affidavii. l‘enlpoints on which they want to he 9k. i heard, i‘hei Corpcration or :he concerned Vi authorities éihali hear. them as expeditiously as i“ the parties ehall render due possible angd i cooperation. ' i i d) Till the notikes are served and reply, if any, is filed status o as on today i.e. 12.10.2001 shall be maintained y the parties e) The liberty owever, is given to the petitioner /petitioners to remoile on their own encroachme t or the obstruction in suitable cases if so ad ised so as to satisfy the Corporation concerned authorities to the extent mmmm .. 7 WW1§WW . $Wm ~v to grant time to fiie rep} by CW was inclinec Navember, petitioners Accordingly ;'ustice. November, 11) dlsposed of Oriomal documents riled by the pa ties may be revul led afit t grecord. The security, if deposited, bi. the photocoples are fned on refunded to the petitioner as pe rules. >77 :\, M Hi h w 1 Sdl. f Chief Jusuce authorities shall decide the mafter i t in ccnsidezaiica: as well. X possible and on its own erit in accordance With law taking into this as . So far as fiiing of reply is; comerneii, than ‘ 0m: 2001, however Counsei for the prays for extensron of time. time is exi—ended in the ends of reply be filed on or before 9‘“ Le: 2001. I With these observations and directions this petition i s Leadie i photooopv $5 per 1ules Jii i IR i i r