^ JL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. Utfc /2010 APPELLANJ (Petitioner) Smt. Kamarjahan, wife of Sheikh Shahnaz, aged about 50 years, resident of Old Bus Stand, Raipur. Vs RESPONDENTS ^ .^ ^^? '^ '9 ^ The Municipal Corporation, Raipur through its Commissioner, Malviya Road, Raipur. / 2.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Malviya Road, ^^ yy Raipur. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE CHHATTIS6ARH HI6H COURT^APPEALJ:0 DIVISION ^y ^" te ^saat!%. \ /. '(y^ ~^s^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ Writ Appeal No. 416 of 2010 (Petitioner) Resoondents 1. 2. Smt. Kamarjahan, wife of Sheikh Shahnaz, aged about 50 years, resident of Old Bus Stand, Raipur. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur through its Commissioner, Malviya Road, Raipur. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Malviya Road, Raipur. Present: Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ku. Pragya Singh, counsel for the respondents/IVIunicipalCorporation. ORAL JUDGMENT (1stDecember,2010) Per Dhi ndra MM)ra^_J With the consent of the parties, the instant appeal was finally heard for 02 Case of the appellant, in brief, is that she was granted licence of the tand in question by the respondent-Corporation on monthty ticence fee of Rs. 924/- and fifly times of the iicence fee as premium on 28.4.1999 (Annexure P/1). The appeiiant obtained possession of the land, raised sfructure and started her workshop from the aforesaid premises. She ateo got her business registered under the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishment Act and obtained electricity connection for the premises. However, her workshop and garage were bulldozed on 1.8.2009 at 7 am without any notice and her garage materials and other belongings were seized. She protested against the above illegal action of the Corporation vide Annexure P/6 and also fited report against the erring emptoyees ofthe Corporation vide Annexure P/7. However, she was made to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for getting her belongings, which were illegally seized during the demolition proceedings. 03. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appeltant vehemently argued that from bare perusai 6f the document of Annexure P/1 , it is evident that the appellant was in possession over the land in question as a licencee as per orders of the Dy. Commissioner of the Corporation. She was carrying on her business peacefully from the said premises for a period of 10 years after -2- erecting small workshop and obtaining electricity supply and after getting herself duly registered under the Chhattisgarh Shopsand Establishment Act. However, her workshop has been demolished and she has been dispossessed by the respondent-Corporation without following the due process of law, without revoking the licence in her favour, with an ulterior purpose of settiing some other person of their choice over the said piece of land. However, her writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order by relying upon the manipulated documents filed by the officers of the Corporation regarding issuance of notice to the petitioner, which ailegedly remained unreplied. From bare perusai of the documents fiied by the respondent- Corporation, it would be evident that the notices were issued to her under Sections 322 and 323 of the Municipal Corporation Act for illegat encroachment, which is applicable to such illegal encroachment which causes obstructions in street, whereas, in the instant case, admittedly, thert is no aliegation that the appeilant has encroached upon street. The entire documents have been manipulated and cooked up to legitimatize the illegal action ofdemolition. 04. On the other hand, Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Ku. Pragya Singh, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-Corporation, submits that the learned Single Judge, considering the note-sheets and the documents filed by the respondent-Corporation along with their return, has arrived at a conclusson that even after the petitioner came to know that there is a notice or intimation to remove the structure constructed unauthorizedly and illegally, she failed to file repty and that she has aiso faited to produce any documents to estabiish that she has deposited the premium and rent pursuant to the document of Annexure P/1, and as such,she is not entitied for any relief. The above finding is based on the material available on record and the same does not call for any interference. 05. We have heard learned counset for the parties and perused the pleadings of.the respective parties as also the documents filed by them. 06. From bare perusal of the document of Annexure P/1 , it is evident that by the above document, permission has been accorded for granting licence to the appeliant with the condition that monthly iicence fee of Rs.924/- and fifty times premium would be payable. Itfurther stipulates that there would be 15% increase in the licence fee after every three years. The appellant has not filed 3- any document to show that she has deposited the premium or licence fee under the said document. 07. So far as grievance of the appellant that the demolition has been undertaken without any due notice to her and the notice under Section 322 of the Municipal Corporation Act is defective as the same retates to encroachment over the street, is concerned, we are in agreement with the observattons of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner dld not fite any reply explaining her case before the authorities of the respondents- Corporation after learning about the notice and in these circumstances, it cannot be contended that the demolition was undertaken without any notice to After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after ciose scrutiny of the material available on record, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. , Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandraka^ Judge