^^'^i<^ i'F BSt 'i%-i?^il^ ^Ss»!suv:S'' • (•a BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC.1 No. -^i)2^1 /2011 Petitioner Respondents r^ .^,^-^^. ^...k' ^ ...-•\ 1> r~ 1. 2. 3. ^^•^, 4. ^j^l^l^ " 5. 6. 7. g. Naresh Kumar Arora, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Darshan Lal Arora, occupation - business (General Store), Ward No. 9, Nagar Palika Parishad Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS St.ate. of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Deptt of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Secretary, Urban Admn & Development Departmerit, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, D'stt. Raigarh (C.G.) Superinfcendent of Police, Raigarh (C.G.) Distt. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Divisipn.- Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Tahsildar - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh Station House Officer, Police Station - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUT1QN OF INDIA PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 7624 OF 2011 Naresh Kumar Arora Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A.N. Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1 to 6 & 8. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No.7. /Pn<s<sarl ftn thi<£ 14 d?SV nf no^Amhor 901 V •^*^'*'"'*" Wt 1 *I IDIrf t • «tl»J»/< *rftrf"W</«1 KK'trf* , *fW t l^ 1. Bv this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned notice dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P/1) issued bv the respondent No.7, i.e. Chief Municipal Officer, Naaar Palika Parishad, Kharaia, District Raiaarh, whereby, the petitioner has been asked to remove his structure situated over the !and in dispute, alleged to have been constructed illegalty, within a period of two days. It was further made clear that if the structure was not removed, the same shall be demolished with foree. 2. Shri Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be thrown out on the basis of the above notice, as ihe petitioner has not been afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned notices may be quashed. 3. Shri Agrawat, learned counsel appearina for the respondent No. 7/Nagar Palika Parishad, Kharsia, submits that no further demolition shall be done without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering his response to the notice. The petitioner shall be issued fresh notice granting reasonable time to respond to put forward his case. 4. On perusal ofthe impugned notice, it appears that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing to establish asto whether the atleged structures in dispute are authorized or unauthorized, as the case •^ ^s K ^. :.^ "? '^ y °%. ^Ss-'' "^•waS^ 2 of the pelitioner is that he has been residing there for a long period, on oroper authorization. 5. The petition involves disputed question of facts in regard to the fact asto whether the construction over the disputed land are authorized or unauthorized. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot decide the above stated disputed facts on the basis of averments made in the pleadings. Granting two days time to remove the alleged unauthorized construction was no opportunity, as some reasonable time ought to have been given to the petitioner. In case, where demolition had aiready taken place, the petitioner is at libertv to take recourse to appropriate forum for grant ofcompensation/damages, ifso advised. S. Since no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, the impugned notioe dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-1), is quashed. However, the respondent No. 7 i.e. ChieflVlunicipal Officer, Na.aar Palika Parishad, Khareia, is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and after examining the case ofthe petitioner, may pass appropriate order, ifso advised. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. asnoic Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge