^^-:. '^^""'^' -l i? ^% y ^ ©§r'5a3F RiPIICIi II. 1^^I,,£p 1-t;'^ ^^ ^B ^w'..^""' ?HE HON?BLE HZGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BZLASPUR PETITIONER W.P.C. N0. ^S5DOF2011 ^"Jeewan Lal Dewangan son of Shri Arjun Dewangan, aged about-55 years R/o Ward No.4, Pratapganj, Bilaspur Raod, Tahsil- Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1.^ State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Nagriya Prashan Awam Vikas Bibhag, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh CG ^" 3: PETITIOH ARTICLE 226 OF THE The petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under:- ^ .^ HIGH COURT O^CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETITION (Q No. 6547 of 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Shanti Bai. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS : WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6658 of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kanhya Singh Thakur & Others. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIQNER WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6548 of 2011 Smt. Fekan Bai & Another. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (0 No. 6549 of2011 Ramchandra Sidar. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENZS : WRIT PETITION (Q No. 6550 of 201 1 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Jeewan Lal Dewangan. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri M.K.Sinha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on 15th day ofNovember, 2011) ^\. 1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in these petitions, thus, they are being disposed ofby this common order. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned notice dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P/l) issued by the respondent No. 3, i.e. ,ff":'iii ^ ^ i, ^ 1 ^..^ 1! i "^ . '';.^. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sarangarh, whereby the petitioners have been asked to remove their stmcture alleged to have been constmcted illegally, situated over the land in dispute. 3. Shri Sinha, leamed counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession oftheland in dispute on the basis oflease granted to them sometimes in the year 1990, 1984, 2003, 1989 and 1984, respectively. Thus, the petitioners cannot be thrown out on the basis ofthe above notice. Shri Sinha further submits that since the petitioners have constructed stmctures on the land in dispute before 1994, no permission was required. Thus, the impugned notices may be quashed. 4. Shri Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that fiirstly, the lease was not granted in favour of the present petitioners who have approached this Court, and secondly, for the purpose ofwidening ofthe road, the unauthorized occupation may be cleared under the provisions of section 223 of the Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961 '\ The impugned notice is in accordance with law and valid. Any stmcture constructed unauthorisedly, cannot. get protection on the ground that no permission was required prior to incorporation ofsection 223 ofthe Act, 1961, which was substituted by M.PAct No.17 of 1994. 5. Be that as it may, these petitions involve disputed question of facts firstly in regard to grant of lease and secondly, whether the constmction over the dispute land are authorized or unauthorized. This Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia^cannot decide the above stated disputed facts on the basis ofaverments made in the pleadings and/or affidavits. ^ ^' ^;f %f ^ 6. Accordingly, all these petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. However, the respondent No. 3 i.e. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sarangarh is directed to take steps in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity ofhearing to the petitioners and after examining the case of the petitioners, before passing the appropriate order, 7. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit