wwwwww‘m“ .mmwwmwwmwE. EMH . Emmmww .Uxwwux €Z§ A. Avg@W a ‘4. If V E.r . ‘lllre pf: u f, d JXII—HC-22 V7W @‘riiwré W WTW \3 0 1 gnNo 3 [200 EQQQQI Q I Pe s by Sl<mka WW th wcr u1¥>$wb espon State b Dr. N.I. Sl'kla, leaed Dy.A.G. Municipa! mporatio by M adra Shristava, dvocate. Heard. 2) T matter ws hear anamgously ’ other connected his a d wm: ters becae th ommo uestion invoived is regding demolition of mat us e cn q er ‘buildings constructed ill lly / without permission or against periion. I certain cases ailied t ot n is o ord mss n t is eg hat cnsm io nt a; cmy , ’tc- ma nd, .cei uer b de nso sea6;; [his u ps a hangof s has een ma ime -5 frther l1 t onstu s int iv‘ 3 aeged hat crction made is agas the provisions of ‘ ", unip Corpon atha am N d hi2 Mical ratio Act, .P. Nagar T Gr iveeh A 973 d MP B ka N, is he ahd at t 1 an .. humi Vi iyam 1984. It furtr ege th a certan places roa dth bung ve b ata Casm ius iffitiI l pr f e. or ug varo dculeS uding oblem o drainag sewage, ste [m ataa Rdent / y < ru m Cn S? Mni va A i e a i d Wi a d ildi lines ha no. e en mmxmd “m www ‘aawlm, famwgz WI, 3mm Va 200 fig” 31m mmwm‘ Emiafmmfifgtém of water, pollution of water and air etc. which results in denial of civi! 3 mnenities, damage of roads End traffic obstruction. 3) Counsel for e petitionm submits that on the ground of z alleged construction of buili ing as Inen‘tionxad above, change of user and ’ other things demolition is eing apprehended and directed It is also contended that in certain c ses ofiences have been ccmpounded and in some cases applications for compounding have been made. Counsel for the State and the responden s oppose the petition and have filed the retarn and in the cases where re ms are not filed, request has been made for filed. It is pointed out that this Cenrt has adopting the return alreadJ passed detailed order in Writ Petition No.716/200] which is registered as A copy of the said order has been placed dn record. petitioners submit that in some cases there is 4) Counsel for the dispute regarding door ratio area between Raipur Development Authority are; Municipal Corporation. It is whereas according to Municipal Corporation it is - plan thefloor ratio area is 2.5 Citizen of Bilaspur V_s. Municipal Corporan'on, Bilaspu_rt submitted that according to Raipur Development k x1.H(..22 t ya WWW mWm’, ‘ mm? mam mm Wuma‘hiwtfm ésaawm 1.5. In those cases this questiqm may also be raised which will be considered and decifei on it»: own merits w accordance with lzmx 5) Counsel for the Corporation / State and other authorities / mat because of illega1 respondents pointed out encroachment in violation 01 building laws difficulties and problems have arisen such as pollution of a} r and water, obstruction in cleanii ig of drains, stoppage of flow of water, denial of civic anmnities and damage of roads It also causes traffic obstruction and hindrance in smooth traffic. This a Court had passed orders1‘from time to time on 17/8/2001 and on . 28/9/2001. 6) The Apex COL rt 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 some of the petitions have been filed by the petitioners merely on apprehension. The respondents/Corporation a‘nd authorities have inspected spot and also made enquiries regarding the construction. [111$ died. construction / XI-HC-22 mm WW£wm A mama mmmm .. 4 .. $W m A mm 8) Counsel for the resl;pondentS/Corporation further submitted ihat the petitioners have r1;sh%d 12:3 the High Court i'hough dispute-d questions of Fxts are involved and each case rests on determination L2; those facts. In certain cases iwlxere notices are not served they an premature as well as in other tiases the Corporation and the authoritiei requhing demolition'will serve notice to the petitioners and in those casek where notices have already been served. The petitioners may now file reply supported by affidavits and documents etc., which will be considered and decided on its own merit in accordance with law. If the petitioners give in writing with affidavit on points specified that they are desirous of being heard, they shall also be heard by the Corporation er Tm the authority concerned as far as possible. 9) We have considered the submissions made by rival parties; gone through the record and the order sheets have been recorded in tht cases from time‘to time so as to provide opportunity to all parties to place their respective view point. It is‘not necessary to reiterate them here one! again as they form part of record; in our opinion questions sought to be l i i aised in the petitions are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone . into b his Cou‘rt in writ jui‘isdic‘rioi'l. v t 10) Having thus considered the totality of the circumstimces we direct as under ; i a) Wherever there is apprehension and notice has not been issued by the Corporation or the l concerned aguthority notice shall be issued and opportunity shall he given tor£ile reply and after reply is file the matter shall be considered and decided oni own merits in accordance with law‘ 1 b) Wherever n h’ce has been given and reply has been filed f rther opportunity is granted to the 1 petitioners do file reply alongwith documents/ affidavits if o desired which shall be considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. i l l l l r * 'XI-Hc—22 WW,W,fa‘amgl A am m mm W 200 i% a man mm WW WW WW mmmafésa w:aaf‘maxam .. 5 .. XI-HC-22 o-6.~ In cases whqkre the petitioners desire to be heard and makes such request duly supported by affidavii 0n points on which they ‘warit to be heardf the Corporation or the concerned authorities shall hear them as expeditiously as possible and the parties shall render due coopeiation. WWW§WW $mm C) d) MT- Till the notices are served and reply, if any, is filed status quo as on today i.el 12.10.2001 shall be maintained by the parties. The liberty hhowever, is given to the petitioner / petitioners to ‘encroachme t or the obstruction in suitable cases if so ad ised Corporation concerned authorities to the extent i i remove on their own SO as to satisfy the W d 9m?) authorities shall decide the matter possible and 0n its own liaerit in aCa110n'lance with law inking i nto this asp ct in consideration as wei}. SO far as fii" to grant time to file reply by 3M was incliiied November, petitioners Accordingly justice. Le! : reply be filed on or before 9th November, 11) disposed of. Original document the photocopies are filed on refunded to the'petitioner as pe rules. Certined photocopy per rules. With these obser ng of reply is concerned. rims Court 2001, however counsel for me An” prays for extension of time. time is extended in the ends of vations and directions this petition is s filed by the parties may be returned afte; record. The security, ii deposited, b: I Sdl- Chief Justice i rsnr" , ,Wwm. mime ‘Hiuxiuaagvwkm "W“M “ ‘ wwwn ,i y...” “sews... w m a.AF Megshw .01.