GCM aXS'ayi.S; SSZM 3'E8>S"15 ^y BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC.l No. 12011 Petitioner Resoondents ^•^ ^ ^ ny^ ..^ ^ ^^A^ k^%^^ y \^c€^f' S-:.ri* Harsukh Lal, aged about 54 years, son of Late Kishan Lal Patel, occupation - business (Paan Mashala Shop) Ward No.9, Nagar Palika Parishad - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS l.^State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Deptt of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. ^ The Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) f. The Collector, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. -^The Superintendent of Police, Distt. Raigarh.(C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Division - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh The Tahsildar - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) The Station House Officer, Police Station - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh u--' 5. •y:sf" 6? 7. 8. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 7158 of2011 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS Suresh Kumar & Another. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarii & Others. PETmONER WMT PETmON (C)No. 7159 of2011 Mohd. Yunush. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisaarh & Others. <^n) PETmONER WRTT PETmON (C)No. 7161 of2011 Shyam Sundar. VERSU8 RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Otfaers. PETmONER WMT PETmON (C) No. 7173 of2011 HaraukhLal. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattissarh & Otfaers. PETmONER WRTT PETmON (C) No. 7174 of2011 Manohar Lal Chandwani. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETmONER WRTT PETmON ('C)No. 7175 of2011 Sabir Ali. RESPONDENT8 VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Ofhers. PETmONER WRTT PETmON CQ No. 7176 of2011 Abdul Qayum. VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS State ofChhattissarii & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. Aamhotri, J. Present: Shri A.N.Bhakta, Advoeate for the respective petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorfhy, Deputy Advocate General witfa Shri Aron Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 to 6 and8. , Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate forthe respondent No. 7/ Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia. ORDER (Passed on 01st day ofDecember, 2011) 1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in these petitions; fhus, they are being disposed ofby this eommon order. 2. By this petition, the petitionere seek to quash fhe mipugned notiee dated 15.11.2011 {Annexure P/l to W.P(C) No. 7158, 7159 & 7161 of2011} and 08.11.2011 {Annexure P/l to W.P(C) No. 7173, 7174, 7175 & 7176 of2011} issued bythe respondent No. 7, i.e. Chief Munieipal OfBcer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia, District Raigarh whereby the petitioners have been " asked to remove their structure situated over the land in disputed, alleged to have been constmcted illegally within a period oftwo days. It was farther made clear that if the structure was not removed, fhe same shall be demoUshed with force. 2S^ 3. Shri Bhakta, leamed counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submits that the petitioners cannot be thrown out on the basis ofthe above notice as the petitioners have not been afforded proper oppQrtunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned notices mav be auashed. 4. SSiri Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7/Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia submits that no farther demolition shall be done wifhout affording the petitioners proper opportunity of hearing and considering fheir response to the notice. The petitioners shall be issued fresh aotices granting reasonable time to respond to the notices and the petitioners may also file response to the same. 5. On pemsal ofthe impupied notices, it appears that the petitionws have not been afForded anv opportunity of hearine to establish asto whether the alleged structures in dispute are authorized or unauthorized as the case ofthe petitianers arethat they have been residine there for a lone period, on proper authorization. 6. These petitions involve disputed question offacts in regard to the fact asto whether the eonstruetion over the dispute land are authorized or unauthorized. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction eamiot decide the above stated disputed facts on fhe basis ofaverments made in the pleadings. Granting one day time to remove fhe aUeeed unauthorized eonstmction was no opportunity as some reasonable time ought to have been given to the petitioners. In cases, where demolition had akeady taken place, the petitioners are at liberty to take reeourse to appropriate forum for grant ofcompensation/damages, ifso advised. 7. Since no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, fhe mrouaied notices dated 15.11.2011 and i.11.2011 are quashed. However, fhe respondent No. 7 i.e. Chief Municipal OfBcer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia, is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity, may be two weeks, to tfae petitioners and after examining the case ofthe petitioners; may pass appropriate order, ifso advised. 8. Aecordingly, all these petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit