a? HtGHCOURT OF JUDtCATURE CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUF SLEBENCH : Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nay-ak, C.J. @^TETSr»X!i^0. i ani i i i ti^ i Ta hii TL Sunii Kumar son of Jeewat Ram agsd aDout 36 years, reslaent of Amapara, IIStt. •'(-S1 VsfSLIS ^ 'he State of Chhattisgarh, Through the ^:i"-^*-:^f r^i-M--^..^.'•..•!• r>:!~-SJ- r^i"—;»-^"-"-i-:/f' /"l ^ ii5?»iii-L^rTJii^trffcyi ; i</j<5ii., i-/iiyi ili.SE) i ^T^.SS./ The Secretan/, Department of Publlc Works, Dau Kaiyan Slngh Bhawan, Mantraiay, Raipur (C.G.) The Sub Divisiona! Officer, Pubiic Works Department Sub Division M^/,^-^^^; r^:.<,44 r^4.-n*A.-i.; //^ /^ •>, unsfFixan; uisn. urisniiun ^L'.'^^ The Tahsildar, Dharntari, Distt. Dhamtari (C-hhattlsgarh) The Nagar Paiik Parishad Dhamtari, through - the Chief Executive Offlcer, Dhamtari ('C.G.) Pfescni: Shri V.R. Tiwan, learned counse! for the petjtioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, iearned Go'/t. Advocate forthe State. ^^u s^i a Th1s writ petition is directed against the notice marked as Annexure P./1 produced at page 10 ofthe materiai papers dated 07-03-2006, Issued by the Sub Divjsionai Officer, Publlo Works Dspartment, Sub Division Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, ths third respondent herein, aileging that the petitioner has encroached a space ad-measuring 13 feet x 15 feet (195 square feet) beionglng to the Public Works Departrnent which forms part of a public road and directing the oetltioner to remove the lllegaj construction made by him in the said plot of iand whi'e administenng a threat thai if he fails to do so, the authorities wou!d take appropriate steps to remove/demoiish the illegai construction. The petitioner, it is irue, has denied the assertion made in the impugnsd notice by tly Shird respondent. According to the petitioner, he purchased the subject plot of iand undera Registered sale deed dated 08-05-1984 and since then, he has been in lawfu! possession of the said plot as its absoiute owner. < (2) Having regard to the pleadlng of the petitloner and what is stated by the third respondent in the impugned notice, what arises for decision- making is a factual controversy. That controversy cannot be resoived in a •summai'y proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution or tndia. The dispute brought befora the Court rslates to titls of the subject plot, whsther it >s the properiy of the Public Works Department or property of the pst'tloner as daimed by him. Such a dispute can be resolved on!y by way of a comoetent Civll Court. However, it was appeaied to the Court by ieamed counse! for the petitioner that there Is imminent danger of ciemolishlng the construction made by him in the subject plot of land and, therefore, the i'espondent-authorities b® prevented from resorting to den'iolition for a reasonabte time so that She Detitioner could v/orkout hi.s Segalremsdies befora the jurisdictsonal Civ" Court. (3) Having heard iearned counsei for the parties, 1 dispose of me writ potiaon directing the petitioner and ths respondents to maintain status-quo that obtains as on today with regard to tha subject piot of land for a psriod of fivs wseks from today. A!l the contsntions raised by the partiss in the impugned notice an" in ths pleadings of the petitioner are feft open to be agitated before the jurisdictional Civil Court, in ths event of the petitioner InstituSlng a suit for iegat remedy. In the faets and circumstances of the case, tne parties shail bear their respective costs. (4) Certified cooy as &er ruies. Sd/- ChiefJustice e'?'°yl^