‘W passed Being 1616/2003 by Learned / Rajesh Single Jain, Judge & others in Writ vs. Petition State of Chhattisgarh & others. ’/ WRIT CHHATTISGARH APPEAL HIGH UNDER COURT :SECTION [APPEAL 2l1) TO OF DIVISION THE J BENCHI ACT, 2006 ¢0§z The Appellants, named above, most humbly and k$fl $9 respectfully beg to submit as under: ~ .1 we »/24. ' ¢ w Q 6: ~.g goA @vziig'sw v, u u %@ §% y G) THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ofzoos wmA ealNo.%ZG% Shri Dhanya 3‘ , Apgellants 1./ Rajesh Kumar Jain, Jain, s/o aged about 37 ‘v‘ //years Shri Pannalal Jain, s/o Late Shri 6K6 2. Balramchand Jain, aged about QWN)’ y &’vf7 / 58 years 1 > 0\:én/ .cvvNi" ‘ 5 '\ 3. Jawaharlal Balramchand Jain, Jain, s/o aged Shri 46 " ” years residents of Manendragarh, A11 residents Tehsil Manendragarh, District ‘ ‘3, Korea, Chhattisgarh Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, Respondents l through the Secretary, Urban Administratmn Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Municipal Council, 2. The I Manendragarh, ‘DiStrict Korea, Chief Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Municipal Officer Nazul Officer, 3. The Manendragarh, District Korea, y Chhattisgarh, ‘W / 17.10.2008 the order dated 9? HiéH CCUWT OF CHHATTI5GA§H AT §ILA5?U§ BIVIsION aENCH: GN‘BLE SHRI i DUSI & HON‘BLE SHkT MK. AGARWA WRIT APPEAL NO.268I2003 AF—PELLANTS Rqiesh jam & ofher‘s D..2:.‘ r c x i+icvners V5 RE5?ONDENT5 The Sfafe of Chhaffisgm‘h & ofhers Priesani‘: Mr. Sanjay K Agarwal, Advocafe wifh Mr. S. Shawna: AdvocaTa for appeiianTs‘ Mr. I‘V‘LPS. Bhai'ia, §y. Govt. Advocafz for respondenfs No.1 & 3. Dr. MK. Shukla, Sr. AdvA wi‘rh Miss Rim Jam, Advom a for respandenf Na. 2. ’ GRAL way-ram? {Passad an 15* June, 201a} xt, iM. Qaddusi, j: 1. Heard learned counsei for The parfies’ 2‘ This wri‘r appeai has been fiied ageing? The impugreé arder éa’feci /_‘ 17.10.2068 pesseci by T%e éearned 5simg§e iudge m WP. N0‘1616/O3 gjiemiesima me wri'x“ aefifion as rm? main'faimble. The wri? apneilm‘f is chiming The ownership of fhe pmd (iaiab) {m ‘ihe \ ground Thai as ner ‘Band'obw‘i New} The wrif asppeiiarii‘s’ “farei’a were show/1m as OVmerg a“? The acnd‘ Caun‘ier a‘?1':i£iavi‘i' was fiie'd' by 'i‘he resbemieia‘i‘ Naif; i‘ri The wri'c‘ pe’fifiw in Lx, which "ihe g'miici faker: was “rim? The pimé is vesfed in The 5mm and even in Eamiebasi Khnsra (Annexure P—l), which is filerj and relied on by *ihe pe‘ii’rioner: Column No.5 6 & 7, which rela‘l'e To inlermediary and occupanf respec'rively, are lying vacan‘l and There is no enlry‘ againsi’ These columns. According f0 The resoondehis ihis ifself shaws ‘i’i’ia‘i Lode Khoolschand Jain was no? fhe owmer oi: sdid hank and also ihm“ no land reverme was rem‘v‘ered from him and in The remark column i’e’ No.13 i? is men'iiohed “rho? The land revenue is exempi‘ed whieh iiself shows: ”rho? lhe said “rank was being used for ihe pubiic gums; um i: was e nubiic ‘i’cmk even a? ihe ime «we: zifiargei’sdr rh 1mg LU ed Wi3i"$ :1? of none 5’i'e ‘ A. i e QeELieiee we Jae teem ewe ‘i‘o Secfioh KOO (is) of The C.€7. fiiiu'riieigali‘iies fie? according i’o which subjee‘i To any special reserva‘iion i t f, A3 A : i x .TJ. H M. ' 'D L. g e a' ' mmie or} 1‘0 any speciai condifions imposed by The Smfe Gevemmen‘r, a“ preperfy of The na‘rure hereinaffer in This ses’rion specified wifhin The HmH’s of The Municipali‘fy: shail vesi' in and be under ‘rhe confroi 0f Tha Council and wiii aii oi’her property which has aiready vesfed, or may hereafter vesf in The Councils shaii be heid and appiied by i’r as Trusiees for ‘fhe purposes of fhis Act Defaiis of ihe properties men’rioned in Seciion 100 (b) of The CG. Municipaiifies Ac‘i are ail pubiic sireams, Tanks, reservoirs, eisTerns, weils! springs, aqueducfs, conduiTs, Tunnels, pipes, pumps and oTher waTer works and oll bridges, buildings, engines, works, maTeriols and Things connecTed wiTh or opperTaining ThereTo, and also adjacenT land noT being privoTe properTy, opperTaining To any public Tank or well. 6. Learned counsel for The wriT appellanTs has emphasized The words “noT being privoTe properTy" and Therefore There is no doubT ThaT There are dispuTeclvquesTions of fads which cannoT be deTermined by The High CourT in exercise of exTraorclinary jurisdicTion under ArTicle 226 of The ConsTiTuTion of India and ThaT is why The learned Single iudge has observed in The impugned order ThaT The peTiTioners may approach The appropriaTe Civil CourT for deTerminaTion of Their righTs. . Accordingly: we do noT find any illegaliTy, improprieTy in The impugned order raTher in our opinion The impugned order is well reasoned and we confirm The some. 4 8. Tn The resulf, The appeal has no subsTance, The same deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as T'o cosTs. /, sw— re e / sal- I.M.Quddusi N. K. Agarwa‘ Judge Judge \f‘ - a’,.