^^-— <- IN SIS H1GH. GF JXDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0 ^"v~0OF 2001 ^ BETt^SM Smt8 Ja^-shjeee Gangwaai WLfe of Shri Prggcash GasigwanV aged 48 years^ R@sideiafe of Shanker N^ar Raipur^ Bloc3c Kfo^l6^ Basement Floor^ Jai Ram Oomp3ex Shar«Sa Cho^kf Raipur» PETITXONER A N D ^^'' .......^•ss"" - ..^^f^" 1^^.'^^ .^r' !• 'Bi®State of Chhattisgarh^through the ^^"& •*•"? ^ Secretary Departaient of Urban Development aa3 ^dministration," Raipur, Mimicipal Corporgfcion Raipur, ^irough its Coramissioner, Municipal Corporation,. Corporation Building, Raipur. City P?.aaner, Municipal Corporation ^Raipur. SSSPOS&EBTTS l^RIT PETITION T3HDER ARTICEE S 226/227 @F 'HIE OONSTITUTION OP I )IA w: ^,. ;X?-HC-22 3:(T^T'QFI R-lJch' 3:T1^T ^H^ ^r^ci r"' m -s-^ '^^Tv^, ^i'tT're', tqr-ff?^ ^T^J W»TcTF^nHich TPi 2()0 fgv^y' ^IT^I '^RTr^H: Tlf^'H =hI<l-ji<vl4'iT1 ^IM<vff ^ feT^t 'ri^fCTT ^ 3Tp?m 3TT??T W|P,NO t i20i3/20Ql t^l^TOOl Petitioner/sbvShri ^W"^ ^<^'^ ^. Respondenr /Stete byj Municipal CorporatioiJ Dr. N.K. Shukla/ leamed Dy.A.G. 1 by Shri Manidra Shrivastava, Advoca^e. Heard. 2) This matter ^v^s ^eard a-nalogously with other corLne.:teci matters because fhe common question involved is regarding demolitlon of buildings constructed ille^ally / wifhout permission or against perniission. In cerial^ <^ses t is alleged that cor?struction is nc! accordin;? to maps aiid chctrigc o^ userjhas been made in some cases. It is further } aiieged that construction s<}) made is agaiiist the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, M.P. ?l>Tagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and M.P. BhuiTii Vikd^ Niyam, 1984. It is further alleged tha. at certain places road width ar^d building lines have not been inainteinec causing various diff?cu]iies iiyluding probiem of drainage, sewago, store [rjt^^T3-rr Xi-HC-22 3TI^T^T ^N"3^1 5hHi"h ^fea -3-:a? -^!Fn^4, s^ft?m^, •f^fT^T an^T ^^? \ ov ^PTFff^rW^ "?F[ 2W fe^y' W^T "^^T^T: IHt^TT 2 . ^{^Jd41ri 'RTH^ff "^ ferzt <[^^1< ^ ^ti^R ^^T of water, pollution of watejr and air etc. which results in denial of civil 1 amemtles/ damage of roads ^nd traffic obstruction. 3} Counse] for t^ie petitionc. 'ubmits fchat on the grourid oj: olleged construction of buiijding as mentJoiied abo^7e, cha-ige of user and other things demolition is jbeing apprehended anii directed. It is also (ontended that in certain c^ises offences have beer comp()unded and in some cases applications for the State and the respondeii^s oppose the petition and have filed the retu:r? i and in the cases where reti^ms are not filed, request has been made for adopting the retum alreadf filed. It is pointed out that this Court has passed detailed order in Wijit Petition No. 716/2001 which is registered as Citizen of Bilaspur Vs. Mui^icipal Corporation, Bjlaspjir. A copy oi the Municipal Corporation. It is plaii the fioor ratio area is 2.5 compounding have been made. Courisel for said order has been placed c|n record. 4) Counsei for th^ petitioners submit that in some cases there is dispute regarding floor ratio ^rea between Raipur Development Authority an^l jsubiiiitted that according to Raipur Developm^t |whereas according to Municipal Corporation it is [Tft^^fe?T i—teiimi XI-HC-22 >3T?^T'^T [^i^' 3Tf^T , ^RT^'^rf^T -^aEI ^T^F^fq^ ^Tfr-Fl^, H^T^W ~^^K v^ MPR<??T ^TW^ "V-i 200 fgR^a" ^K?I "^TT^R:'PrfN ..3. -hi^d^i^ ^TH^ff ^ fezt -^fRH ^ 3Tf^TH ^TT^T 1.5. In those cases this questi^n may also be raised which will be considered and deci^^d cr. irs o\7/^ ^^ii<> in accjordatic^ with x<^v. 5) CoanseJ for thp Corporatio?T / State and other airthorities / respondents pointed out! that because of iliegai conslruction / encroachment in yiolatioii o: ansen such as pollution of a stoppage of flow oi water, 4emal oi: civlc ^i'^mties and danuge ol roads^ It also causes traffic obsrnlction and hindrance in smooth traffic. This Court had passed orders building law^s difnculties and problems have r and water, obstruction in cleaning of drains, from time to time on 17/8/2001 aiid on 28/9/2001. 6) The Apex Co^rl in Ahmedcibad Municipal Corporation Vs^ Nawab Khan Gulab Khan ahd others (AIR 1997 SC 152) has dealt with the matter in great detail. The j^ 7) Counsel for tl(ie respondents pointed out that some of th£ petitions have been filed bv| Lidgment has been read in extenso. the petitioners merely on apprehension. The respondents/Corporation ^d authorltles have inspected spot and also made enquiries regarding tljieconstruction. .!„.„- [Tft^ ^^\ XI-HC-22 3:n^T'^i f^-ii<=h 'sni^i ~»^ri^'yf^a ^-ocf ^|<L||^<4, ^Tll^^ICo, [^<V11<H^< E\°'.u, 3T?t?T T^^ WR^IT^RT^) "ff^ 200 •^<y ^TT^I "^fTW^Frf^T . 4 .. 8) Counsel for the re( that the petidonei^ have ru^ri questions of facts aie involved those facts. In certain cases ipondents/Corporation further submittec ad t^ itie High Court fehough dispute^ and each case rests on determination c' premature as well as ii\ other requiring deinolition will serve where notices have already reply supported by affidavits) considered and decided on its be^n the authority concemed as far as gone through the record and thi their respective view ppint. Itis cbl<4l<n^t1 'RTR^ff "? feT3t ^^K "^^ri^R^T^T [where notices are not ^erved tiiey arf cjases the Corporation arid the authoritie: ttotice to tihie petitioners and l^ those casc; served. The petitioners rriay now fili ajid docmnents etc., which will b( dwn mcrit in accordance wifh law. If the petitioners give in writing with ^ffidavit on points specified that they ar? / desirous of being heard, they sh^l! aiso be heard by the Corporation er b. possible. 9) We have considerejd the submissions made by rival parties order sheets have been recorded in thi cases from time to time so as to ^rovide opportunifry to all parties to placi not necessary to reiterate them here oncc again as they form part of record| In our opinion questions sought to be f^^fe^ XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^fNr ^TI^T '9hi-\\^) <4[^a -^S[ ^liqj^^^ ^>xlt^4lro, f^^ll^y. ^-7 1 o^ // 3n^?r ^r^ ^{TR^TI ^)Wch "R^ 200 •^^y' OT^?T ^<n^R: ^rf^T ch{<Lli<yl4'tr1 "RTH^ff ^ f^^ ^fa^K ^ ^yrf^R ^T^T raised in the petitions are dispi^ted questions of fact which cannot be gone ( into by this Court in ^^ritjiirisdjjcuon. • ( 10) Having thus co^|dered the totality of ttie < 'ircumstances w. direct as undei : I a) Wherever fHere is apprehension aiid iiotice has nol been i;tsued by the Corporation or the concerncd ajuthority notice shall be isbued and opportanity shall be given to-^ reply and after reply is file^ fhe matter shall be ccr^tered and decided on i|s own merits m accordance with law. b) Wherever n^tice has been given and reply has been filed f^irther opportunity is granted to tbe petitioners t|o file reply alongwith documents/ affidavifcs if ^o desired which shall be considered and decided law. on its own merits in accordance with ^•^ XI-HC-22 3TT^T"^T f^iw^n^T "^^"H^'^'f^T INU^ -^5E[ ^tl^jd^, ^Tll^^Ko, f^<ni<H^< 3?r^r T^T^ ..b WRcTF^hHlcb "^R, 200 '^E^?" 'yrr^r'^TTW ^ftn cbt^$<n41rl "RTR^ff ^ fe^t Tf^5R '^^rf^m w^r c) In cases wh^re the petitioners desire to be heard and ^akes sucti request cluly supporLCd by affidav'it on| points on whicli they -~^nt tc be heard, <'he Corporation or the coficerned authorities ^hall hear them as expeditiously as possible anjd the parties shal1 render due cooperation.l d) Tiil the notibes filed status duo are served and reply, if ai^y, is ' as on today i.e. 12.10.2001 shall be maintained lj>y the parties, e) The liberty bowever. is given to the petitioner /petitioners encroachmeiiit or the obsb'uction in suitable cases if so adkised Corporation/ to remove on their own so as to satisfy the concerned authorities to the extent L.._ [^^ ?f^^ XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T f<-li<=h ^3^^T ^Hic=h ^f^a rsnr^ •^Sf ^||q|^<^^ ^Tf|^^(o, f^^l^y ^ 3??t^T ^^ ^l*<dl ^HIcft ^ 200. •^^y" -STl^T ^PITW^It^ '5bH?<n<4l-t 'RTR^ff ^ 'fe^l' <F^^J< '^'^ri^R w^r o possible anc^ authorities shall decide the matter 1 on its owri ijnerit- in accordance witfi law taking 1iito this asp^ct iri consideration as well, So far as fll^ng of rcply is concerned, this Court was inclirr?-1 Noveniber/ petitioners Accordingly | justice^ Le| November, the photocopies are filed on refunded to the petitioner as pe^ Certified photocopy ^s per mles. Sd/- Chief Justice to grant time to file reply by 3Id 2001, however counsel for the prays for extension of time, time is extended in the ends of reply be filed on or before 9m 2001. 11) With these obserjvations and directions this petition i? disposed of. Original documen^ filed by the parties may be retiirned afte? |record. The security, if deposited, b( ^^ rules. /\ Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge |TN?^f^i