if; u «gw W. mjwnmiq 3% tr n: x ,lr T; U‘ w “A. w wmqwgwwwgmmw. \w\w a vm M 9mg w. r, {PM$3? wE . 5i¢§wm§ Mai Hang. mwmm mag? «E v‘wm. m WWEE WC. w mi w wic #3mLg Hmm mug w , émssxc: x~mwwhww§ouwx wKiwmwwawawwa E3; wmmx magm. ,xwwwa REnxww? w. , mnMWEna m \La , ~XI—Hcg22 31?. :WJW, gaawrri, W“ W?“ mm WW wiP‘No i%iL, /2001 . gig/2cm 1 Petifmrier/s bvShri 1 DKwOdLQA “Ad/w Respondem / State bypr‘ N.K‘ Shukla, learned Dy.A_G. l Municimi CorporatioflL by Shri Manid ra Shriv astziva, Advocate. ' i ‘ Heard. 5 A) This matter w s heard. analogously with oiher wmwected I matters because the conunoniquestior involved is regarding demolitian of ‘buildings constructed ille ally / without permission or against permission. In certain cases *is alieged that construction is not according: tomaps and change of userv has been‘mad‘e in some cases. It is further alleged that construction s made is against the provisions of MP. Municipal Corporation Act, 1.Pi Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and M.P. Bhumi Vikasi Niv‘am, 1984. 'lt is further alleged that at certain places road width a d building lines have not been maintained causingwarious difficulties irlci‘uding cz'oblem of drainage, sewage, store l l l i l x [tire aft?) XH’iC-QE 3a WWW}, W3, WW? WW mmmm WWI?WW $Ww‘m of water, pollution of wate]r and air etc. which results in denial of civi] I 3 amenities, damage of roads 1am tramc ()bs-a'uvtiw. 3} Caunsei L e petitioner submits that on the groursd of alleged construction of buiHing as mentioned (wove, change of we? aim ' other things demolition is eing agprehended' and directed. It is also contended that in certain c ses offcryces have been compounded and i‘v some cases applications for compounding have been made. Counsel for the State and the responden oppose the petition and have: filed the retarn and in the cases where re rns are not filed, request has been made for adopting the return alread filed. It is pointed out that this Court has passed detailed order in W it Petition No.7'16/2001 which is registered as Qinzen of Bilaspur Vs. M i a1 C01 oration; Bilaspur. A copy of the u 'c said order has been placed on record. 4) Counsel for the; petitioners submit that in some cases there. s dispute regarding floor ratio area between Raipur Development Authority and Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that according to Raipur Development plan the floor ratio area is 2.5 whereas according to Municipal Corporation it is [rite aim a XLHCQZ 3a WW, Wrg W” w J mm mm ..3.. 1.5. In those cases this question may also be raised which will be considered and -t nc-e' wan Lava r: ii“; own :nemn in aux fi . SI Counsel for i'hle Corporation ," State and other authjyiiiles / l respondents nointed nutl 'tha€ because of illegal construvim‘a l i em‘maahmmt in violation 01' building la’ws- difficulties and prouiems have arisen such as pollution of aJr and water, obstmction in cleaning of drains, si‘oppage ot‘ flow of water, giant-J of civic amenities and damags ci reads. It also causes traffic obstruction and hindrance in smooth traflig. This Court had passed orders from time to time on 17/8/2001 1nd or: . 28/9/2001. 6) The Apex Cotrt iii Ahmed_abad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and othersjAIR 1997 SC 152) has dealt with the matter in great detail. Thej dgment has been read in extenso. 7) Counsel for e respondents pointed out that some of the petitions have been fiied b l the petitioners merely on apprehension. The respondents/Corporation ' d authorities have inspected spot and also made enquiries regarding e construction. I i 1 / l ... .. [aid at??? XI-HC-ZZ 8) Counsel for the respondents/Corporation further submittec that {he petiijmlers have rush d to the High Court timugh diEputi-r questions of facts are involved land each case rests on. determination o; those facts. In certain cases here 'nothces' are not served they an premature as well as in-other ases the Corporation and the. authorities requiring demoliiion will serve i otice to the peljiioners and iufthose oases where notices have already be n served. The petitioners may now fik reply supported by affidavits and documents etc, which will bt considered and decided on its own merit in accordance with law. If the petitioners give in writing with affidavit on points specified that they are desirous of being heard, they shall also be heard by the Corporation or b} the authority concerned as tar as possible. 9) We have considered the submissions made by rival parties l gone through the record and the order sheets have been recorded in the n cases from time'to time so as to rovide opportunity to all parties to plan 1 their respective view point. It is not necessary to reiterate them here onc: again as they form part of record‘, In our opinion questions sought to be l i XI-HC‘22 awaw m mm W 200 We: m an Wm WW ma??? :mW 311%: swam W MA m mmW . . 5 . . raised in the petitions are dispufted questions of fact which cannot be gone this Court irit ‘c’rion. into by n Jimrisd 10) ‘i-hving thus cons dered the totality of the circumstances d‘rect as under - a) Wherever ere is apprehension and noh‘cc has not been i sued by the Corporation 0” the concerned thority notice shall be issued and opportunity shall be given to gge reply and after reply is file the matter shall be comiéered and decided oni own merm in accordance with law. _ l b) Wherever n h‘ce has been given and reply has been filed f rther opportunity is granted to the l petitioners 1%0 file reply‘alongwith documents] affidavits if o desired which shall be considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. i t i t XI—HC—22 m m Wm W 2m) ma Wm Wanéw WW WWW %@W mmmafaa 3$a$auanir$1 ~ ' 6 . . c) In cases where the petitioners desire to be heard i l and makes such request duiy supported t“: affidavit 0n points. (21¢ which they want ’m be I, heard, the: Corpcratirm m the concerned authorities hall hear them as expeditiousiy as possible axili the parties shall render due cooperation. d) Till the noti es are served and reply, if any, is filed status o as on today i.ei 12102001 shall be maintained y the parties. e) The liberty owever, is given to the petitioner /petitionersl to remove on their own l encroachme t or the obstruction in suitable cases if so ad ised so as to satisfy the Corporation concerned authorities to the extent N “\xr w 3d]. Chief JHSu'ce s filed by the parties may be returned aftei record‘ The security, if deposited, bi I rules. / 1i /\ b’r/e/ sw- - Fakhruddm ‘ Judge. l l, t. i disposed of. Original document the photocopies are filed on refunded to the' petitioner as per Certified photocopy 41s per rule an: am XLHc-zz WW’ WW W ( Wm m 200 mg $§w WW mmmw .. 7 v. Wm£i§m ‘ possible and authorities shall decide the matter on. its own Enerit in accordam‘e with law taking inta this aspect in consideration as welL f) So .far as tiling of reply is concerned, this Covrt a was inclinec to grant time to file reply by 3“?“ November, 2001, however eonnsel for the. petitioners prays for extension of time. Accordingly time is extended in the ends of justice. Let reply be filed on or before 9th i November, £001. 11) With these observations and directions this petition