{mg h ‘ ( 3:/ %/ V/f— “m" aw , 7 IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUE CHHATISGARH) WRIT PETITION C Nos? L" 2009 S.B. / Gambhir Sai Sandilya S/O Late Shri Mohar Sai, By Caste-Gound, Aac— M>yas. ‘ ' R/O Villagg— Fundurdiari, Tahsil— Ambikapur, Distt.—Ambikapur [C.G.] PETITIONER: - :VERSUS: RESPONDENTs: - /1. State 0f Chhattisgarh, Through The Sectretary, Department of Urban Administration & Development, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, RAIPUR, Distt.Raipur (C.G.) /2. The Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, Through, The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, Distt: — Suruguja (C.G.) i/ 3 The Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, " Distt: - 5urugu_ja (C.G.) 4. The Taheilaiar, Tahsil- Ambikapur, Distt.Suruguja (C.G.) r -: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDII‘». EOR THE ISSUANCE OF ‘ THE DIRECTION (a), ar ormgR [s]:- wem@g ’ / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. i HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. w.P. 1C) No.2422/2oo9 PETITIONER Gambhir Sai Sandilya Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocatefor the State/respondents No. 1 8a 4. Shri Rahul Tamaskar, counsel for respondents No. 2 85 3 / Corporation. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 13.01201 1) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying following relief: "(i) May kindly be pleased to call up entire record pertaining to/Revenue Case No.17 of 2008—09 of village Fundurdiari, pending before respondent No.4 Annexure (P—l). (ii) to allow the present Writ—petition further pass appropriate order/direction to the respondents to finalize the Revenue Case No.17 of 2008-09 of village Fundurdiari, filed by the petitioner for the z e 1 (‘H elaw 8L arcation report in accordance with th its rules. may kind1y pleased to pass any other relief as E s) which may deemed fit dem (iii) and such order (s) /direction ( by this Hon’ble Court while nece ssary / suitable , ner towards s herein or if deciding the writ in favour of the petitio the damages caused by the respondent any other reliefs.” ner is that the petitioner is a joint—holder of W agricultural land; he has ancestral property situated at Village— bearing Khasara No.23l/ 1, 230, 276, 2. Case of the petitio Fundurdihari at P.H. No.—6, 160 & 161, in total, 24 acres in area. The g'ri titioner is that in the city of Ambikapur, during the widening of evance of the pe the public road by the Municipal Corporation and its authOrities, d of the petitioner has been included, for which neither any acquisition proceedings were drawn nor any compensation has been paid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner had approached the authorities for prope a part of flan r demarcation of his agricultural/ landiv ‘so far, proper demarcation and inspection has not been done. He submits that in these circumstances, respondents may be directed to make proper measurement after spot inspection. he other hand, submission of learned counsel for the for respondents-Municipal ounsel ' / measurement after spot 4.0m t respondents, particularly c z . Corporation is that measurement was duly taken and a report was submitted by Revenue Inspector on 18.4.2009 (Annexure R— 2) before Tahsildar, in which, it has been stated that at the time of Widening of the road the earth extracted was lying on the land belonging to the petitioner and later on, the same has been removed from the land of rthe petitioner and there is no encroachment on the private land of the petitioner. He therefore, submitted that as no part of the land belonging to the petitioner ? ‘ has nor been any taken acquisition or used proceedings for constructing drawn, or the widening petitioner public is road, not entitled to any relief. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. The dispute in e present case mainl relates to a facual aspect th y t as to whether the land or part f the land belonging to the petitioner has been used in costructing/widening pulic road. n b While the petitioner sates that a part of his land has been consumed, specific assertion has bee made by the respondent- I 7.. l Corporation supprte by report dated 18.4.2009 that. only the eh t b art was spread over the land of he petitioner, which has een re en h later on removed. The matter therefo, requires quiry into te factual aspect which cannot be gone into by this Court. It would ,thereore, be prope in the interest ofjustice to direct espondent No.4/Tahsildar o ke measurement pon spot insection after o t n / od J i 1 f r r t ma u p giving notice and in the presence of the pe ‘tioner fficers of o respondents-Municipal CorpOratio'n. On the basis of report of the Tahsildar, it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to remedy which may be available to him under the law. 7. It is further clarified that if the parties are aggrieved by the report of Tahsildar, they would be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings. In case it is found that the land of the petitioner has also been used and consumed in widening of public road, the respondents—Corporation shall take appropriate steps to award the petitioner compensation according to the law. \r'”, i 8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ' Judge Sd/- Praveen