t l^^ ^ ^,<% } jy ""ff'i h^y 'z6z^-zp^_ SIN6LEBENCM; BEFORE THE HON'BL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) No. \?2% / 2010 ^ PETITIONERS f..-'^ A'n/ ^\A^L ^y ..vy ^- ^ ^"' y 1. Telibandha Mandir Sarvajanik Nyas, Raipur, Registration No. 185, through its Manager, Arun Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Shri R.G. Shrivastava , aged about 36 years, R/o C/o Shiv Mandir Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Madhuri Shrivastava, Wd/o Late Shri R.G. Shrivastava, Aged about 75 years, 3. Smt. Madhu Shrivastava, W/o Shri Ajay Shrivasrtava, Aged about 46 years 4. Smt. Rashmi Shrivastava, W/o Anup Shrivastava Aged about 40 years All Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are R/o C/o Shiv Mandir Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS /" 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Deparfment of Urban Development Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, / Raipur, C.G. 2. Municipat Corporation, Raipur, through Commissioner, Municipal / Corporation, Raipur, C.G. s 3 Director, Town & Country Planning, Regional Office, RDA Building Raipur, C.G. 4 Collector, District Raipur, Raipur, C.G. 5. Sanjay Garg, Collector Raipur, C.G. 6. B.L. GajpaL, ^v/' ^- Tehsildar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 7. Omprakash Chodhary, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION ^ ^nia. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1838 OF 2010 EEHtjONERS RESPONDENTS Telibandha Mandiar Sarvajanik Nyas & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent Municipal Corporation, Raipur. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 7th day of September, 2010) 1. Neard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petltioners se'ek a direction to the respondents No. 1 & 4 to provide appropriate rehabilitation to the petitioners before demolition ofthe constructionsraised on the plots allotted to them earlier 3. At this stage, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, submits that the construction has aiready been demolished and in lieu of that the petitioners No.2 to 4 have been allotted residential flats bearing No. E-01/22, E-01/36 & E-01/24, respectively. Thus, the prayer of the petitioners does not survive, as the petitioners have all-eady been allotted the flats asaforestated. 4 Under the rehabititation scheme, the land was allotted to the petitioners No.2 to 4 on permanent lease, wherein clause 4 clearly provides that in the public interest ifthe lessees are to ^M ..C-k ^ ,y'te^ilit t^^^^-'^ ^ s^^" ^^w^i^. Qowl-i 9; 7. be removed from the place, they would be entitled to rehabilitation at some other place. Accordingly, the sam<? was doneand, as such, the petitioners have no right to daim for thte benefit of not demolishing the structure, which was raised on the land allotted earlier, and demolished, thereafter on allotrtient of new residential flats. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners fhat the petltioner No.1 Telibandha Mandir Sarvajanik Nyas, Raipur, has constructed the temple oh the other lands, nOt allotted to the petitioners No.2 to 4, the same may be protected or some othpr land may be allotted. The petitioners have failed to produce or establish that the land in question Was ever allotted to petitioner No.1 and, as such, the petitioner No,1 cannot claim any right on the ground that a temple was constructed on the land allotted to petitioners No. 2 to 4. The allotment of the land to the petitioner No.1 or construGtion of temple on any other land is a matter of dispute, which cannot be decided by this Court. The petitioner No.1 is attempting to seek a declaration to the effect that the trust has constructed a temple on other land or on the land allotted to the petitioners No. 2 to 4, which cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, liberty is reserved tp the petitioner No.1 to take recourse to appropriate forum as msiy be available to him, if so advised. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. ^? Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge