^c''^t-—-.-T ^. ^^f n...4^"" l./ 4;>7' ^' (S) .CL Ifi_IHE_HIGH_GQURT_OF_JTJDICAOTBB &3 BILASPUR (CHH&E'TlSGffiH') 1v\ ^^$^^:-Z.-2QQ2 s 1^'Nooruddin Virani, son of '^ Badruddin, aged about 33 years,~ resident ofBalrang Bazar; Yajdanlbara, behlnd .„ _. <" Chnattisgar'n College,Baipyr(C.G). 2* Sardarilal Gupta, son of late Lalaram Dalal, aged aboufc ?6 years^ occupaAioiis •Social Worker,'resident of Pandri, opp ? to Hew Bus Stand, Raipur (Clmafctisgarh ). '^ RE^POBDEI2S s M^ -'"'Msn^. "Stafee of Chhattisgarhs ?broxigii its Cnief •Secre'fcary^ ^Bha.wan^ Raipur (C.G-)^ ^. Union of India; Through its .^ '! ^ . ^ ^01;^ feA' p^'/ Secretary, Home Ministry,. ^5€y',.v^ ^€."-" ^^' ^c:&^ t^ ' ^^' \ 1.^^' c\^ -^lcl' / a^ ^- Governmeni of Indla,Hew ^elhi * ^_@e^^@@^0^^p^.%^.p^p (CMG) , 4. Collector, Raipur (C.G) ?* Shyamacharan Sb'alcLa, son of la-be Havi Shankar ShulAa, aged abo'at 7? years^ resident of ghankarnagar, Haipur(G.G). 6^ toit..esn Shukla^ son of Shyamacharan ShuMas aged about ?0 years, resident of Shankarnagar, Baipur- (G«G.) ?-» Gautam Mishra, son of Swesh Kiimar M-shra, aged about 40 years, res'. of Shankarh3.gar,Baipur (C.G) :y '""" RESPOEDEI^Ss 8. Begion^l MaDager,Bharafc Petroleum, Baipar (O.G.) miT^ETITION^g^T^ MAT®E,_OFPl%EIC INTERESS .-^ LITIGASION UNDEB ABTICLE 226 7 227 QF^mE CQSS?ITIJnQH_QB'_INDIA_P®_r3SUAK@^OF_^^ APmomi&^_tEIT^B^SGTIO]^A@D/j^,^^K^ 'v i ^. ^ -,:^^^^w HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE GHHATTISQARHAT BILASPUR fDMSIONBENCHl CORAM : Hon'ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, CJ. & Hon'bte Shri V.K. Shrivastava. J WRIT PETmON N0.566 OF 2002 Nooruddin V^rani & Anr. Versus StateofChhattisgarh &0rs. Present: Mr. Y.C. Sharma, leamed counselfor petltioner No.1. Smt. Anju ^iuja, learned counsel for petittoner No.2: Mr. Somesh Bajaj, leamed Dy. Govfc Advocate for State of Chhattisgarh / Respondente No.1 , 3 & 4. Mr. Bhishma Kinger, Advocate and Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate wth Mr. Amft Verma, tearned counsel for respondents No.5,6 & 7. ORDER (Passed on 21'* April, 2006) The following order ofthe Court was passed by A.K. Patnaik, CJ.: The (wo petftioners are resklents of Raipur. They have filed thls writ petttion as a Pubtte Interest Lttigation. They have atteged in th®writ petiUon that a demolition drive was carried out in the cltyof Raipur and in this demolition drive atthough several encroachmente Induding those of petitioner No.2 were removed, encroachments made by the respondents 5, 6& 7 in Raipur in different areas were not removed beeause the respondents 5, 6 & 7 are influentiat persons and hav®high connections. In particular, the petitioners have alleged that an area of 2492 8q. ft. In Khasra No.267/1 at Tatlbandh, Pachpedi Naka, Raipurwas ghwn on lease for a period of three years to respondent No.7 Shri Gautam Mishra and respondent No.7 has construeted a Hotel-cum-Wine Bar calted Hotel Nest on the sakl area and the period of three years for which ttie lease was \ ^J 1 \ " ^-u grantod has expirad in ttie meanwhite and yet respondent No.7 continues to occupy the sakl area which belongs te ttie State Govemment It is further alleged in the writ petition that an area of aere 0.39 in Khasra No.271/7 at Pachpedi Naka on the Nattonat Highway Raipur fe in occupation of the respondents 5 & 6 and a Petrol Pump has been estabtished on the said area, but the responctents 5 & 6 have macte construction beyond the said area of0.^ acre and have encrwrehed i^x»i the govemment Jand. It is also alteged Ihat near the Old Bus Stand, Raipur, some land was gh/en to the family ofthe respondenta 5 & 6 forthe purposes of eslablishing a Petrol Pump and the said land continues to be oecupied by the respondents 5 & 6 for purposes ether than a petrol pump and in fael the famify of the responctonte 5 & 6 aro carrying on the busjness ofa Food Parior In the said land. 2. Respondents No.5,6 & 7 as wetl as respondents No.1,3 & 4 have stated in their counter afRdavlte that so far as the land inWiasra No.267/1 measuring area 2492 Sq. ft. in TaUbandh, Pachpedi Naka, Ra^)ur is concemed, the (ease in favour of respondent No.7 has expfred and the respondent No.7 has ffled an appWcatton for renewal ofthe teaseand ttie said applteatton for renewat is stttl pendtng disposat by the concemed authoritjes. RegarcRng land measuring acre 0.39 in Pachpedi Nato, Raipur on the NaBonat Highway, respondents 5 & 6 as well as responctents 1,3 & 4 have taken a stand in thejrcounterafftetavite thatttie said land measuring acreO.39 i8thepersonalpropertyefra8pondwrts5& 6. Regarding the tend near the Okt Bus Stand in Raipur where the pefrol pump was established, respondents 5 & 6 have Stated in the eounter afRdavjt that the petrol pump on the said land has now been shfflted t&the (and of M/s J. Shukta & Co., the famtly jMirtnerehip of respendents 5 & 6, at Pachpedi Naka, Raipur on the Nattonal Hjghwayandthe said tand near the Old Bus Stand where the petrol pump was eartier located has been surrendered by fhe Bharat Petroteum Corporaflon Ltd. to the govamment. It is further stated in the counter affidavit of respondents 5 & 6 that adjacent te this land at the Old Bus Stand In t^iipurtwo morepieces of (and, one measuring 1SOO Sq. ft. and other measuring 3^2 Sq. ft. have been gh/en on tease to M/s. J. ShuMa & Co.;thefamilypartnershipfinn of respondents 5 & 6 for the purpose of carrying on trad®andbusiness and 0,' copies ofthe tease cteeds in respect cf saidtwo pteces of tandftave been annexed to the counteratnda^tsas /^inexures R-5/7, R-5/8 & R-S^. 3. Shri Y.C. Sharma, teamed counsel appearing for paKtioner No.1 submitted that the petifioner No.1 has filed an applteation for withdrawal and therefore. the petitioner No.1 is no longer interested In pureuing this public interest litigatjon. 4. Smt. Anju Ahuja. teamed couns®!appwrirg for petitiener No.2 vehemently submftted that consjdering the encroachments nrwcle by the respondents 5,6& 7 inthe dty ofRaipw and in the Natteirerf Hlghway at Pachpedi Naka Raipur, it is a fit case in whfch the High €ourtshoufcl direct an enquiry by the CBt. 5. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Advocate & Mr. Manlndra Shri^stava, Sr, Advocate, with Mr. Amtt Verma, leamed counsel for respondente 5, 6 & 7 on the other hand submitted thatthe petitioner No.2 is pursuing thte publte interest litigafion on account of the previous grudge •ntertained by the petitioner No.2 against respondents 5, & 6 and since th®bonaffdes ofthe petitioner No.2 are in ctoubt, the High Court shoukl not entertain thfe writ petttfon as pubtfc jrrterest liUgation snd shoutel dismiss th»same at the threshokl. 6. Shri Somesh Bajaj, leamed Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for ttie State of Chhatfegarh relied on the retum fitod by nreponctente 1, 3 & 4. 7. Since altegattons of encroachments en Gavemmwttend in the cWy of Rajpur have been macte by the p^ittoner N6.2 to thfe writ petWon, we are not indined to dismiss this writ pettfion at the threshold because such encroachments, if any, in the crowded ctty of f^iipur have to be iwroved in the publte interest. But since encroachments, ifany, can be removed tyy ttie concemed authorifies m accordance with law it te not nece%ary to direct an enquiry by the CBt. 8. So far as land measuring 2492 Sq. ft. in Khasra No.287/1 in TaKbandh, Pachpedi Naka Raipur is concemed, admtttBcMy ttw said tand was leased out in favour of nspondent No.7 tor a perioGt oflhree years and admittedly the said period of three years has expired and tt appears r ^ that respondent No.7 has fited a renewal application, butthe said renewal appltcatton has not been cH^»osed of by the authoriUes as y^. On the said land the respondent No.7 appears to have constructsd a Hotel-eum- Bar styled as Hotel Nest. 1n case th®application for renewal te altowed and the tease is renewed in favour of respondent No.7 for a further term, the said construction would not be an encroachment and need not t>® removed. But in case the appllcatlon for renewat is i^ectad by the concemed authorjties, obvfousty, the censlruction of the Hotol-cum-Win® Bar on the said tend by the respondent No.7 beyond the period of tease would amount to encreachment. Hence ttie proper ordar in this matter would be to direct the respondent No. 1 fa) dispose of Vh6 applGafion for renewal ffled by respondent No.7 in respect ofthe »aidland in accerdanoe witti law within one montti of receipt <rf ttie copy of this order from tWs Court and in case the apptfcatfon for renewal is rejected by the authorities. steps wiB be teken by the concemed authorfties for evietion ef responejent No.7 in accordance with law and in such evicHon process all <lu@ opportuniUes wIH be given to respondent No.7 as provteted unctor the law. (t goes without saying that in case the responctent No.7 is aggrieved by the orders passed by the autheriUes etther on the applicatten for renewal or in the eviction proceedings, it woukl be open for respondent No.7 to move the apprepriate forum for relief. 9. Regarding land measuring acra 0.39 In PaehpecW Naka Ratpur OR the National Highway, sincethe responctents No.1,3 & 4 and responctents 5 & 6 hav®taken a stand in their respectiv®counter affldavNs before tfiis Court that the said land belongs to Mls J. Shukte & Co., the fBNnily Partnership of respondents 5 & 6, this Court in this writjurfecltetton unctor Articte 226 of the Constitutton of tnd(a cannot go into <he queston as to whether the said land actually belongs to M/s J. Shukla & ©o.,the family partnership of respondents 5 & 6 or betongs to the State Govemmenfc It is settled law that the matters in which the tttte to tand is disputed. the appropriate forum is the Civil Court and the appropiteto remedy is a Chril Suit. Hence we decline to deckle the question of titte to the satel land measuring acre 0.39 said to belong to the family of r^pondenfes 5 & ®. But since an allegatlon has been made in the writ petition that respondents 5 & 6 orthe famity parfrierehip flrm of respondents S & 6 who have put up the petrol pump on the sakl land haw encreached on tand (f/ '5- beyond fie said area of aere 0.39, we are of fie view ttat the Gotle^or Raipur, respondent No.4 witl cause an enquiry into ttte matter and if he finds that there have been encroachments by the respondents 5 & 6 or ttw family partnership firm of responetents 5 & 6 beyond the area of acre 0.39, he will ensure that appropriate steps are taken in accordance wfthjaw for removal of the said encroachments. This action wUI be inittated by th® Collector, Raipur wtthjn a period <rf one month from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis orderfrom thfe Court. 10. Regardmg the land at tfie Old Bus Stand fci fteiixir whwe the pefrot pump of Bharat Petroteum Coiporation Ltd. was eariter sftuated, the stand of respondents 5 & 6 in the counter atRdavit is dear thatth®tand on whteh the petrol pump was located has been surpenctered fay the Bharat Pefroteum Corporahon Ltd. to ttie concemed authorittes aftw shifting of the pefrol pump (o Pachpedi Naka Raipur on (he Nattonal Highway. The Coltector, respondent No.4 wflt enquire into the matter withln a period of one morrth from the date of receipt of a copy of thts order ftom thte Court and w'll ensure ttiat possession ofttie lamd sakl to have been surrwctered is wtlft tfie govemment. We make tt clear ttiat M/s J. Shulda & Ck)., the family partnership of respondents 5 & Switl not l»disturbed in respeet of possession of the area of 1500 Sq. ft. and 3682 Sq. ft. near the old Bus stand, Raipur given on l^ise to M/is. J. Shukte & Co. uncter Annaawes R- 5/7, R-5/8 & R-5/9 forfrade and business purposes. 11. Smt. Anju Ahuja submitted thal the case of the peUfionw No.2 in the wrft petition is ateo that the very anotment of tie said two pieces of land measuring 1500 Sq. ft. & 3682 Sq. ft. in favour of N/s. J. Shukla & Co. is Ulegat. We are afrakl that in this publie interest Ntigalion complainlng of encroachments on Govemment land, w®cannotgo into tfiis c|uestton. tf a speclfic case of Utegality jn making the altobnent of the two pieces of land is made out tn a separate writ p^itton by any party whose intarest has been affected by such altotment, the High Court ean consktor the same on tts own merits. 12. With the aforesaid directtons and observations. the petition is disposed of. Paities shalt bear their own costs. A copy of ttiis order wltl be sent by the Registry to the Collector, Raipur (Respondent No.4) forthwiyi for compljance. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge