HIGH GQURT OF JUDFCATURE CHHATTESGARH : €§LA$PUR ' siNGLIE BENaH .- Hen’ble m WP. Ns.?482 OF 20G6 81m SR. Nayak, CA. PEWTIQN§R sen Ashok cf Dodwani, Shri Variai aged about DaS 47 years, Di$ii re$meni Dhamfari of QM Chhaifisgarh. Bus Stand, Dhamtan'; Dodwani, Versus m REEPGNBEN?$ 1. $tate of Chhaftisgar District Coiiector, Disi‘t. h, Through tha Dhamtari (ca) h) The Secretary, Department 0f Pubiic & Mantfaiay, Works, Dau Raipur Kawansmgh (CE) Bhawan, 3. Works The Sub Dwartment Divisiona! Officer, Sub Division Public 4. The Tahsiidar: Dhamtari, Distt‘ The Nagar Paiik Parishad Dhamtari, through - its Chief Executive OffiGe’T‘,‘ Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamiai'i (CG) Dhamiari (Chhaitisgarh) p”! Dha'mtari (CG) Presgni: Shri VR. Tiwari, learned counsei for ih Shri Utkarsh Verma, iearned Dy. Govi. ‘1‘\\ e petitioner. Advocaie for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23r3 March, zoos; petition is directed against th This writ e notice marked as Annexure papers dated 07-03-2006, issued, Pl? produced af page 10 of the material peiit (304 square feet) bei ioner has encroached upon a spece ad‘measuring 15 feet x 1Q feet onging i0 the Public Works Departmeni which forms 1 part of a public road and directing the petitioner to remove ihe mega! cmstruction made by him in the said plot cf iand while administering a threat that if he faiis to d0 so, the authoriiies wauid take appmpriate steps V i to remave/demoiish the iliegal construction. The petitioner, it is true, has denied the assertion made in the impngned notice by the third respondent. Accerding to the petitioner, he purchased the subject piet of iand under a Registered sale deed dated 21-11-1986 end eince then. he has been in iawfui poesession of the said plat as its absoiute owner. (2) Having regard to the pleading of the petitioner and what is stated by the third respondent in the impugned notice, what arisee for deoieion— making is a factual controversy. That controversy cannot be resolved in a eummary proceeding under Article 225 of the Constitution of indie. The dispute brought before the Court relates to title of the subject plot, whether it is the property of the Public Werks Department or property of the petitioner as claimed by him. Such a dispute can be reeotved only by wee of a competent Civil Court. However, it was appealed to the Court by teamed counsel for the petitioner that there is imminent danger of demolishing the construction made by him in the subject piot of land and. therefore, the respondent-authorities be prevented from resorting to demolition for a reasonable time so that the petitioner could workout hie iegal remedies before the jurisdictional Civil Court. (3) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, l dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner and the respondents to maintain status-duo that obtains as on today with regard to the subject plot of land for a period of five weeks from today. All the contentions raised by the parties in the Q? hgi impugned natice and in the pleadings of the petitioner are left open to be agitated before the jurisdictiana! CM! Court in the event of the petitioner in$tituting a suit for legal remedy. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. (4) Certified copy as per rulesv Sd/— Chief Justice zr 7 94w“