® 1N THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PET1TION N0. 4-2-.2)/ OF 2005 PETITIONER: [Applicant/Plaintiff] RESPONDENT: [Non-applicant/ Defendant] ,. ,.„ ^^.^••"''^Y^ l'."'V .^ ^ -•^} ^'a^^" •< 0'7...- Vs Govind lal Agarwal, aged about 49 years, son of Shri Ramgopal Agarwal, resident of Satti Bazar, Raipur. Jawaharlal Shrivastava, son of Shri Thakur Prasad Shrivastava, Proprietor- Jawahar Cycle Stores, Satti Bazar, Raipur. i^""' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 *tl*tCTl^TTT^ ';(xq<-qi«ict«,walwi<»,;RCTi<(iy<( t^f Ms-l/^S(/6j- gn^?icprl^)jith gsiTan^CTanifw -fe—. aii^sTiraw (*jcilj6i<d) S'RITW'llBd aiI^RT 12.9.2005 5hri B.P. Sharma, counse Heard. As the petition can bsdi the respondent,therefore, it respondent. Howeyer, the resp^ndent will be at liberty to move this Court by filing an application fo .226/227 of the , Constitu-t-ioi^ propriet/ and correctness o| learned 3 Additionai Judge[ Raipur in M.J.C. No.55/2002 fii| on 11.9.1987. Brief facts leading to fi| petitioner herein had filed a c <t>l<lfd<i)'1 Nlldl'^Ts'd'tluKCK ^aif^Tan^T' '; ' : for the petitioner. fcposed of without issugnce of notice to is decided not to issue notice to the modification of the order, if he feels aggrieve.d by this order. The petitioner has pref^rred this writ petition under Artic'ie of India questioning' the lega!ity, order dated 26.4.2005 passed by to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, hd in Civil Suit No.429-A/1984 decided ling of this writ petition. are that the vil suit against the respondent herein, who was the tenant in the s|iop of petitioner, fon eviction under Section 12 (1) (h) of the C.6. A\ ground for recon$truction o^ xommodation Control Act, 1961 on the shop. That civil suit came to be registered as Civi! 5uit No.^29-A/1987 ond learned Civil Judge decided that suit on 11.9.1987 ii^ favour of the petitioner herein with a direction to the petitioner her^in to construct the sdid shop within a penod of six monThs dnd ThereafTer, deliver The posSesSien To the S ii BBNtN li;s :l : i ll . XI-HC-78 *ii*t<9ia»TT^ vJTDcl'-yWiyy^yTHwttt.firtltfy *^ ^ '-f2')|/OT 311^91 tRip(';j,qIgq<s) gn^CTWf^itw a'i'irsn^aTspiw re^pondent in terms of. Section Act, 1961. In complionce of the herein ydcated the shop within but when the petitioner failed t respondent in possession, the re^ Sectiori 151 of the Code of Civil fl the petitioner herein to deliver •| petitioner herein reptied to the shop in question was demolishec^ question on which the-rented area from the middle line of tH house and as per new; master plo^ entitled to raise any constructio] middle !ine of the road, as su| construct the shop 'in question respondent. Learned trial Cburt vide petitioner.has not placed any n\<\ site showing that the land pn comes within the 30 feet area f! that there is any such rule cannot be raised within the 30 - (Bi«f»<I1t*ii*i<»T^"1«'<!1•<luitci'( ^aTf^qgil^?!' of the C.S. Accommoaatibn Control ojrder dated 11.9.1987 the respondent t)ie prescribed'period of two months () reconstruct the shop and put the i^pondent mQvsd an application under ^rocedure on 30.3.1994 for directing •^he possession of the said shop. The St^id appiicdtion and stated that as the by the petitioner and the land in was existing comes within 30 feet \e. road in front of the petitioner's of Raipur city the landlords are not h within the 30 feet grea from the ^.h the petitioner was not able to and del-iver the possession to the impugned order observed that the (terioil on record or the map of the vjihich the rented shop was existing 'om the middle line of the road ond wi^ich requires that the construction fiet area from -the middle line of the XI-HC-78 W*lt41^W^ 'i?-oq'^<i«l«Kt,»-a)wK»,|6|«l<iy'< ,y^> ^l^ 1 lo < 3II^9T<(aq? (ijcii^^) sii^Troft'iN^ a2iT3n^?T**<i* yRlf^Ri8^B3D^l -y road. ! heretore, the, C.ourt direct said shop and put the responden' Shri B.P. Sharma, Advoccjte time be gronted to the petitionej land in question comes within.th^ the road and therefe're, the peti^-i shop. He further- SEibmitted #i^,t wiil be difficult for the petiti| ground that as per existing bye petitioner is not entitfed to consp'ruc Looking to the pecuiiar si| the case,! am of the opinion th4t petitioner requires consider-atio^. . impugned is modified to tiie approach the trial Csurt within 1 before the trial Court within al show that the tdn.d 'pn which rerl' been demoiished, falls with'[n 30| road and on account.of byelaws entitled to cdrfstruct the shop. fact in that case the trial Coul section (3) of Section 18 of the wh)ch saysjAat "...w^ifly to ^ iBrafw'Dt fii»l'^" fo><3 •tluitci'i ^art^rsn^CT* ted fhe petitioher to r^construct the in possession. for the petitionenargued that a to place on record the fact tiiat the 30 feet o.rea. from the middle line of 'ioner is not entitied to construct the if this order is altowed to stand it bner to impiement the same on the bws of the Municipal Gorporation the i-ruct the shop. i-uation and facts & circumstances of the prayar friade by counse! for the In the circumsl'ances, the order extent that the petitioner shouid 5 days from today and to file material period of two months thereafter to ted shop was existing, which has now feet o.rea from the middie !ine of *he sf the Municipal Corporotion hs is not [f the petitioner is able to prove that "t. to. consider the last limb of sub- ^.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 defendant such eompensa+mh as the a XI-HC-78 *iw«nia?'n^ '* | ^ l4(cW, u-a^wis, IqrtKay .........^f.^.^s.^...,.... ^F^ZOO 3IT^911-1CR?R(^lfg6lS) sii^iroR'iwi'I gan3lA?Iri>*fl<l! ~^ ti 1 -y^ska.'i-] Court think'fit'. If the petiti shop on the iand in question aspect and after considering tl| looking to the facts and circum; fails to establish the stoind takfcn entitled to pass the order ir| Accommodation Control Act, 19^ With the directions &. stands disposed of.; Consequently, M.(W.)P. ;stand disposed of. : Certified copy as per rulej MJo.3497/05 & 1.A. No.7796/05 aiso <t>l<|[d41'f4Hd)"^'fe'<SlxKn'<y< ^aif^qsii^T ' ; mer is not entitied to construct the t-hen the Court should consider this lis aspect to pass apprQpriate orders stances of the case. If the petitioner sn by him then the triai Court will be terms of Section 18 of the C.G. II." ' ; observations aforesaid, the petition Sd/- I-.C. Bhadoo e