'lSI C Y- 2^f^>- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No./J feY /2008 PETITIONERS 1) ^^ .. 2> ^y^e^\- ^.?''c'/?"" ..•••''~ \"7.-' ^•yy^^y VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) ^ ^OT ^^^s&^ W^^ib^'- ^^s^ F '<' ^ "^"^ V& 'i\ rf^, //•S/ / A'^1 'l ® ( S.R^Kau^'!< 1 J | i^.->^ /ii \&-7.^7 ^G.- 2) 3) 4) Dinesh Verma S/o.- Late Shri Shiv Shankar Verma Aged 44 years, Occtfpation- Cultivator Anil Verma S/o.- Late Shri Shiv Shanker Verma Aged 40 years, Occupation Cultivator Both are Manohar Bilaspur (C.G.) R/o.- In front of Talkies, Juna District Bilaspur State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Urban Administration Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) Municipal Corporation Bilaspur through its Commissioner Town Hall, Bilaspur (C.G.) Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Town Hall, Bilaspur WRIT PETITION UNDER.ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA iai ^StAJStVl/'VfTV A Tt' f ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCrARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J, PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.(C) No. 1564/2008 Dinesh Verma & another Versus State of Chhattisgarh 85 Ors. Petition under Article 226 of the Oonstitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Murhty, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 852. Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4/Municipal Corporation. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 14.01.2011) Heard. 2. By this petitiori, the petitioners have called in question the aufhority of the respondents in entering upon the land owned by the petitioners for construction of road and drainage without proper aequisition in accordance with law. 3. Case of the petitioners is that 1.16 acres of land situated in KhasraNo.330 (0.15 acre), 336/6 (0.35 acre), 332/2 (0.43 acre) 85 327 (0.23 acre) situated in patwari halka No.22 Juna Bilaspur was owned by the father of the petitioner namely- Shivshankar Verma and after his death, the petitioner succeeded to the property by virtue of will executed in their favour, placed on -2- ^Si £ •^,. ...:^' ^' ^ record as Annexure P-1 along wifh the various revenue entries. It is stated that on 8.7.2005, the authorities and officers of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and District Administration forcibly entered the land and desfa-oyed barbed fencing and further started raising certain construction, which were protested. After enquiry, it was learnt th§t the respondent - authorities have started consta-ucting road and drainage including the land of the petitioner, whereaftei, father of the petitioner subraitted representation to respondents No. 2 & 3 oh 25.8.2005. It is the case of fhe petitioners that one drain is already passing fhrough'fhe land of the petitioners and if the present drainage and road' is allowed to be constructed, the land of the petitioners will lose potentiality for yielding livelihood to the petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners tiU the date of Hling of the petition, did not receive any information regarding the notification for acquisition of the land in question and the land have not been acquired as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, because no objection was invited nor any compensation has been paid. It is further submitted that earlier the father of the petitioner had filed a petition bearing W.P. No. 479/06,^.wherein, an interun prder was passed on 30.1.2006. During the pendency of the petition, father of the petitioner died on 21.9.2007 and the petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 24.10.2007, whereafter, the respondents again started construction of road and drainage <^ "% -3- without acquiring the land in accordancewith law. It is subruitted that on 6.11.2007 and 5.3.2008, representations were made to respondent No.3 but ofno avail. 5. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent-Corporation is constructing Jwali Nala on the land which is owned by them without there being any agreement or acquisition in accordance with law. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that in so far as gift deed is concerned, the same is also disputed. He submits that gift deed is not a registered docuraent and fhe sarae- does not result in transfer of valid title in favour of the respondent-Corporation. 6. On the other hand, leamed counsel for respondents-Corporation subniits that the father of the petitioner- Shiv Shankar Verina had already donated his land to the Corporation for construction of road and Jwali Nala and the residents of the area along with father of the petitioner had allowed the respondents-Corporation to take-up land required for construction of nala and road. Learned counsel for the Corporation further submitted that gift deed was executed by father of the petitioner namely -Shiv Shankar in favour of the Municipal Corporation and in this manner, number of other residents had executed gift deed in favour of.the Corporation. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that on 1.7.1991, the father of the petitioner along with 8 other ptl: -4- v ,-y residents of the locality had submitted an appUcation before respondent No.4 for construction of drainage and road. He submits that not only the father of the petitioner but other residents of the locality had voluntarily given their land without seeking any compensation, which is clearly reflected from letter written by the petitioner's father along with 8 other residents of the locality on 20.5.1991 (Annexure R-3 4/1). It is further subinitted that it was only after such voluntarily giving-up part of the land owned by residents of the locality for construction of road and drainage, that the Corporation planned for construction of drainage and road and a part of consta-uction has also been made. 7. In so far as parcel of land situated in khasara No.332/2 admeasuring 0.24 hectare is concerned, there appears to be serious dispute between the petitioners and the Corporation with regard to title of the same. Moreover, in so far as a parcel ofland situated in khasra No.327 admeasuring 0.08 acre is concemed, respondents have placed on record a copy ofletter (Annexure R-3- 4/1) which is addressed to the Commissioner of Corporation by as many as 9 persons including the father of the petitioner, in which, there is a mention of not only a parcel of land situated in khasra No.332/2, in respect of which, a gift deed is also said to be executed, but also a small portion admeasuring 0.08 acres of land situated in khasra No.327. The said letter says that the persons stated therein have surrendered their land for ^ ^ss%, ,f'l '•s,-... ..ES\ 'X »&j "'"'"% J -5- \0^ construction of road and drainage without claimmg any coinpensation. The said letter contained signature ofthe father of the petitioner. Therefore, in respect offhe land admeasuring 0.08 acres being part of land situated in khasra No.327 also, fhere appears to be a factual dispute, which cannot be gone into by this Court. Therefore, in respect of the afojesaid land, the proper remedy for the petitioners is to seek remedy before the civil Court and to seek appropriate declaration with regard td their title on the said part of land. However, in respect of other land of the petitioners, it is not even fhe case of the respondent-Corporation that the other land ofthe petitioners situated in remaining part of fchasra No.332/2, khasra No.330 and khasra No.336/6 were acquired under fhe law. There is no document to show fhat the said land was ever gifted out to the Corporation by the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents-Corporation does not have the authority under the law to use fhe land for construction of nala or road or for any other purpose unless the same is acquired-in accordance with the provision contained in Section 78 & 79 of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short "tke Act of 1956'). Ifthe Corporation needs fhe land for the purpose of construction and ofher public purpose, it would be open for them to take recourse to the provisipn contained in the Act of 1956 for the purpose of acquisition and acquire the land needed for construction of road and nala. Respondents are therefore restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners -6- \D' over the land owned by them and detailed herein above, except 0.24 hectare of land in khasra No.332/2 covered by the gift deed and land in khasra No.327. 8. The petitioners would be at liberty to approach civil Court for appropriate declaration in respect of the land situated in khasara No.332/2 admeasuring 0.24 hectare covered under the disputed gifted deed, alleged to be executed by Shiv Shankar Verma, as also in respect of land situated in khasra No.327 admeasuring 0.08 acre. 9. The petition is accordingly partly allowed. Sd/- | iManindraMohan Shrivastavaj Judge ^ ••r