w ^ .; -r 2H SHE BX9H CQVBS 0F •JHBICATURE AT BI&ASP0K (G.®.) VKSS PEIXTItM S@. 1^3^0f 2901 Bbaaraj Bdasi S/o KaBhaiya lal Kdasi, 36 years, BesUea't of fiavl QE'am, Tahsil and Blstcicfe Raipur (C.e.) A/» B 1. HUBlcipal 'Stirougfa its GonmissioneFtHunieipal ©arEyratioa,I&ipur. 2. ^ Sbate of ehba'fefeisgarhftbroagli Searefeary loaal Selt Bepartment, B.K.Bhawaa,Kaipar. ^<^ ....^^Si^ ^•^^y^ y<?s¥^'''^. ./.••?'''' vmTv •BfcqiTig-'tSi • ni«BSR K»fSEt,SS 22S/227 ©? y • • Bsss'EireneN 09 JMBIA iJtwtS^- Raipur, 1 i H !J j iill' -%I-HC-22 aiwr^i r<;-fi+ sv^v sht|i<*'(rf?g -s-s. ^mrv^t, ^ffiyfs, fsi^i^j '(ITtrpTT^ill^i.W..'.F,.K?.,.l.^-s..^/.ir-I 2W! fa^i.r' sbl'-lid41-( -SV^ i? fSV\ (FatWK ^T STfSgi? Mr^l WJP.NO I^-S.^/2001 I.VIQ/ZOOI Petitioner/t>byShiri^:^)''u^>^ , ^LU^a^. Respondent/ State bypr. N.K. Sh.-'kla, leamed Dy.A.G. ) :iVfunicipal Corporittio^ 'Dy Shri Mamdra'Shrivastava, Ad-\.'c<'ate. Heard 2) This matter w^s heard analogously with other cciuiected matters because the common question involved is regarding demolition of buildings constructed ille^ally / without pennission or against permissiQn. In certain cases |t is allegert that construction is not according ,.to maps.,and.change of userjhas bees made in sorne Gases. It is further alleged that construction s^ made is against (he provi.'-ions o.f M.P. Municipa! Corporation Act, ^A.P. Nagar Tatha Grarr! Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and M.P. Bhumi Vika^ certain places road width ai| Niyam, 1984. It is further alleged that at id building lines have not been maintained causing various difficuities irjcluding problem of drainage/sewage, store 1 q'T^ 5"^ 1 X^ilC.22 311^(^1 feiwan^f !i7C|N?'Hf?T ^si -^iraicra, g~atwre, •p??trera:J sn^T Tra' *<IKy<i -SW' Tr'[ 200 iaR^a' sn^i ?IaTER ^rfta 2 •[. *iiifi4'H 4i^<*fi ^ fe^zt <r«^i< '^arf=m 3TR^I of water, pollution of watejr and air etc. wh'ch results in denial of civil aaienibf;-j, damage of ro&ds ^nd traJific obstruciion. 3) Counsel for t^ic petitionflr subinits thar. on the ground -~if i alleged consa-uciion of buiij.ling as raerif'oneii above. change of user a.r\.J other thmgs demolition is being apprstwnded and directed. It is also contended fhat m certaiii c|:iaes offences have been compounded and ir soTne cases applicatforis forjcompoundmg have been made. Counsel tor the State and the responden^s oppose the petidon and have fUed fhe returi'! and in the cases where reti^ms ai3 not filed, request has been made for i'! adopting tfte retum alreadj fil^d. It is pointed out that this Court has passed detailed order in Wijit Petidon No.716/2001 which is repistered &•:, CrtLzSL_Qf. Bilaspur Vs. Mui^idpal Corporation, Bila&gyr. A .-opy of the said order has been placed cjn record. 4) Counsel for th^ petitioners submit that in sonie cases there u dispute regarding floor ratio ^rea between Raipur Development Authority sa.vj Mimicipal Coq)oration. It is plan the floor ratlo area is 2.5 ]submitted that accordiag io Raipur Developme^i ^vherear; according io MunJ.eipa! Corporation it is ['TTS^fef J-..-1N; ^m i;i 1 Ai-iir^z ^-si ^wnf^, irawTs, raciRW •STCTT^I iwan^i !.n4i+-Hfei Wn:[T 'ff'-T 200 'fa^a" ^Pfeqt^ iTIimi ^q fSlSt tfsFFCTr ^r sifigiT SIR^I 1.5. In those cases this questiijin may also be raised which will be considered and decided ou its o.v.-:. mer'is in acdordaiiCt; ";'.'ith 'xw. 5) Counsel for thp Corporauon / State and Other authorities / respondents pointed out encroachment in violation o arisen such as pollution of a that because of illegai coristTuction / building laws difficulties and problems have r and water, obstruction in cleaning of drains, stoppage of flow of water, 4enial of civic amenities and damage of roads. It also causes traffic obstnlction and hindrance in smooth traffi^. This Court had passed orders \from time to tiine on 17/8/2001 and on 28/9/2001. 6) The Apex Co^rt in Ahmedabad Mumdpal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan abd others (AIR 1997 SC 152) has dealt with the matter in great aetail. The j^idgment has been read in extenso. 7) Counsel for tljie respondents pointed out that some ot' the petitions have been filed b- the petitioners merely 011 apprehension. Thc respondents/Corporation ^id authorities have inspected spot ar.d als>) made enquiries regarding ttte construction. [tft^^fS-q fv nKM s XI-HC-22 sn^T'iTO r<;-ii+ sn^r 'gitIWHf??! '3 [ ^|<l)|c)^|, y-dl^lto, FsK-IKHy tllNWI ShNlcti "W^ 200 Iq^y' 31)1?! ?RIIW ^lfel -tii<iffi4'i-i HiHfff'? 'fe^t <r»iwi< ^; aifigTi sn^i 8) Counsel for the re^pondents/Corporation further submitted ihafc tbe petilioners have rush^d to fhe High Court though disput-'c ^ questions of facts are involved and each case rests on determination o) ! those facts. In certain cases |where notices are not served they sn premature as well as in ofher (jases the Corporation and the authonne; ^'^ requiring demolition wUl serve ^iotice to the petitioners and in fhose case' where notices have already be^n served. The petitioners may novv iile reply supported by affidavits) petitioners give in writing with and documents etc., which will be considered and decided on its dwn merit in accordance with law. If fhi jaffidavit on points specified that they are desirous of being heard, they shfall also be heard by the Corporation or b\ the authority concemed as far as possible. 9) We have considere^l the submissions made by rival parties gone through the record and the order sheets have been recorded in thi cases from time to time so as to ^rovide opporhinity to all parties to plao. their respective viewpoint. Itis not necessary to reiterate them here onci again as they form part of recordj. In our opinion questions sought to be r^!;>fW XI-HC-22 ~S:31 •^l^ld'4, ^•dl^'l'c, (sldl+iy 3:n^r 'q^g? Wq^n aitltcb "HT, 200 1^5^.1' an^l'qil K.-u* an^T sfi^i^ yfe^i 3II^( ^fdIWBfe^ •*i<<f<-f41-i ^WvS ~^ feet <M]<^|< ^3lf:TtH 311^1 raised in the petitions are dispi^ted questions of fact which carmot be gont iirto by this C'our' in writjuris^tetion. ;0) Having thus cons|dered the totality of the circunistances we direct as under: a) Wherever fti ere is apprehension and noUce has not been i^sued by the Corpo'.ation or fche concemed 4ithority notice shall be issued and opporhmity Ishall be given to-SSs reply and after \ reply is file^ the matter shall be corBidered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. i b) Wherever n()tice has been given and reply has been filed fiirther opportunity is granted to the petidoners tio file reply alongwith documents/ affidavits if lo desired which shall be considered and decidedjon its own merits in accordance with law. ^fc^ XI-J1C-22 311^?!'^ W^ sn^i sb4i+ 'Hfel 'TSI (, '5'tfrOTS, faini'd'j,'!, WHctTgiWiS •w. 311^1 ?RHW Tlftd 'cbl;-lil^!^'IT-i TTFRTt' ^ 'F^^ ^•R.n: ^i'srfSgTi ss^s c) In cases wh^re the petitioners desire to be heard and makes i sucl; rei.mest duty Etipported by affidavit on i points on which they want to be heard, the Corporation or the concemed authorities ^hali hear them as expeditiously as ptissible anfel the parties shall render due cooperation.1 d) Till ttie notifces are served and reply, if any, is filed status q|uo as on today i.e. 12.10.2001 shall be maintained Ijiy the partfes. e) The liberty ghowever, is given to the petitioner /petitioners | to remove on their own encroachmeAt or the obstruction in suitable cases if so adlvised' so as to satisfv the Corporation/concerned authorities to the extent !'~?^ 'ffg'? mii lii, XI-HC-22 an^i^ii R;-ii+ snf?T •arqN;~af^l ^si -i<|.i||<r|i|, d'dlyll<», fsldl+iy •3TR[?T 'q^ 11HCTI ctiKiqi 'FTl. 200 Iq^a' 3D^I'?RIIW ^lf?ti ..71 dilli^^-1 'WRn ^ fSVS ^tfeCTt ^; 3rf:<ro an^r possible anc^ authorities shall decide the matter on its o-.fii ijnerit in accordance with laiw taking ( into this aspqct in consideration as well. f) So 'far as H'.i|ng of reply :'s concemed, this Qiiirt was incJmed to grant time to file reply by 3''s-1 disposed of. Original documentj h n ^ November, 12001, however coiinsel for ihe petitioners prays for extension of time. 1 1 Accordir'gl-y-1 t;me is extendeci in the ends of justice. Le^ reply be filed on or before 9th November. 2001. 1 j 11) With these obsei^vations and directfons this petiuo;i ;• filed by the parties may be retisrned afte; the photocopies are filed on |record. The security, if deposited, b. i refunded to the petitioner as pei^ rules. JCertified photocopy ys per mles. Sd/- ChiefJustice rsnr* Sdf- Fakhruddin Judge i'ft^ ^'n