. @{I—CL22 H mmmm WWW131%¢%WW $Wm ERNO R23 [2001 12/10/2001 I { Petitioner/s by Shri 0 OK .gMTm; A60 Respondent / State by Dr. N.K. Shukla, leamed Dy.A.G. Municipal Corporatio? by Shri Manidra Shrivrlstava, Advocate; Heard. 2) This matter w‘s heard analogously with other connected matters because the common question involved is regarding demolition of ‘buildings constructed ille ally / without permission or against permission. In certain case-5 it is alleged that construction is not according to maps and change ofruserihas been made in some cases. It‘is further alleged that construction s made is against the provisions of MP. Municipal Corporation Act, MP Nagar Talha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 2 4 n \‘ '1973 and, M.P. Bhumi Vikas! Niy‘am, 1984. It is further alleged that at I l i certain places road width arid buiiding lines have not been maintained causing various difficulties ii 'iuding problem of drainage, sewage, store ,.._- -mwwmlw we ”WM l did (€631? aa. aim—cw, admire, W7 ma? ‘ aw i we Elnai$m ‘ .$ Vi 200 g Q Bra arena’q, WWI—<33 WWII Wm of water, pollution of water and air etc. which results in denial of civil 1 amenities, damage oi- roads find traffic obstruction. 3) {.ounsel for i e petitioner submits thaf on the ground. of id alleged construction of buili ing as mentioned above, change of user and b ' other things demolition is eing apprehended and directed. It is also ’ contended that in certain c ses offences have been compounded and in some cases applications for compounding have been made. Counsel for the State and the responden oppose the petition and have filed the return and in the cases where re rns are not filed, request has been made for adopting the return alread filed. 1t is pointed out that this Court has passed detailed order in W it Petition No.716/2001 which is registered as Citizen of Bilas ur Vs. Mu ici a1 Cor oration Bilaspug A copy of the i ‘ said order has been placed record. 4) Counsel for th petitioners submit that in some cases there is dispute regarding door ratio a between Raipur Development Authority arr/d Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that according to Raipur Development ‘ 1 plan the floor ratio area is 2.5 ereas according to Municipal Corporation it is h xV, , r;sAteeossu x:i In i [era £7371 e t ‘ T;vi 200 .............................................. ma ................................................ .. 2 .. WW1?F§2%W égmz’néw XI—HC»22 3a mma, a‘éwm, rmww V % 3mm may 1.5. In those cases this question may also be raised which will be considered and = decided on its own, merits in azvcdo'amrxx‘ 3.1m. (awi I 5) Counsel for the Corporation / State and other authorities / , w resgondents pointed out that because of illegai construction /' encroachment in violation of building laws difficulties and problems have arisen such as pollution of a. r and water, obstruction in cleaning of drains, atoppage of flow of water, cenial of civic amenities and damage of roads. it also causes traffic obstruiction and hindrance in smooth traffic. This Court had passed orders-from time to time on t7y’8/2001 and on . 28/9/2001. 6) The Apex Cot rt in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs: Nawab Khan Gulab Khan a d others (AIR 1997 SC 152) has dealt with the matter in great detail. The j dgment has been read in extenso. 7) Counsel for e respondents pointed out that some of the petitions have been filed b the petitioners merely on apprehension. The respondents/Corporation d authorities have inspected spot and also made enquiries regardingt e construction. i we we W amw‘ fa a Wi' 200 V mm$m .. 3 .. Wum§fg€tm $Wm XI—HC—zz v 8) Counsel for the repondents/Corporatio further submitted tha't the gjfioner have rus to, the igh Carri tou ptm-‘ , questions of facts re nvolved and each case rest o determinatio o a i s n n : those facts. In certain cases here notices re not serd they r w a ve ar remature as ell as n other ses the Corporation and the authoritie p w i ca s reqri demolition will serve oic to the etitiors and in hose se uing nte pne t (‘at where notices hav already be serve The petitioners may no fil~ r e en d. w r reply supported y affidav d docents etc., which w e b its 1 um ill b considered and decided on its n merit in accordce with w. if th cw an la e petitioners give in writing with ffidavit on points specie tha they are a ifd t desirs of being heard, they sll also be heard by the Corpratn er b} au ha oio the authority concerned s far a ossible. ‘ a s p ‘ 9) We hav consider the submissions ade by rival partie e ed m s gon through the record and order sheet have been record t e the s de in hl cases frm ti’to time so as to rode opportunity to a partie to pl thei respectiv vieoint. It i no necessary t reiterate th here ne again as hey or part of recor I our opinion question sough tb t fm d: n s t oe H... +~v ? _ Tn j I . ps h d H hgh dissu o me pvi ll s am r e wp s t o em o: > r “ We} ehai . ..................................... 1F: 200 WW .............................................. [% ................................................ mm WWW§%@W mm WW Mmmafm .. 4 .. i$awfanané¥1 XLHC-22 3a W,m, W f é" m Wm m 200 ma ms! m1 WW? Inn? Wm W 311331 mW mmm afar $ m; am A . . 5 . . i raised in the petitions are disputted questions of fact which cannot be goni into by this Courf in writ jur‘isaiction. 10) Having thus considered the totaiity of the circumstances w direct as under : a) > Wherever ere is apprehension and notice has i not been i sued by the Corporation. or the . concerned 1 thority notice shall be issued and opportunity shall be given tattle reply and after reply is file the matter shall be comiéered and decided on i own merits in accordance with law. b) Wherever natice has been given and reply has been filed further opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file reply“ alongwith documents/ affidavits if so desired which shall be considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. i é 1'52» am} XI-HC—22 WEI WW WW WM$W WW @W % mu mam . - 6 .. c) In cases whq're the petitioners desire to be heard I and makesisuch request duly 5:.2oported by i affidavit am. points on which they want to be heard, the} Corporation 0r the concerned authorities shall hear them as expeditiously a5 poesible and the parties shall render due cooperation. d) Till the nou'ces are served and reply, if any, is filed status quo as on today i.e. 12.10.2001 shall be maintained by the parties. e) The liberty however, is given to the petitioner /petitioners to remove on their own encroachment or the obstruction in suitable cases if so advised so as to satisfy the Corporation/concerned authorities to the extent ‘érfW‘J XI-HC—22 .. 7 ‘.. WWW @W~ $Za1fawerném rsnr* disposed of. Original documents grecord. The security, if deposited, b:. the photocopies are filed on i refunded to the' petitioner as per rules. Certiiied photocopy as per rules. \r\ ¥‘ / Vx y Sd/. 47/77 _ . 5 mef'JUSu'ce h/ filed by the parties may be refurned aftez M. ,,,,y4f J l Sdl- _ Fakhruddm’ Judge / gheéea A possible and authorities shall decide the matter I” on its own merit in accordance with law taking ’“z into this aspect in consideraiior. as well. y t’) So far as fili‘ng of reply is concerned, this Court 7} was inclinecl to grant time to file reply by 3rd November, 2001, however counsel For the petitioners prays for extension of time. Accordingly time is extended in the ends of justice. Lei: reply be filed on or before 9m November, 2001. 11) With these obserizations and directions this petition is