1A C IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BILASPUR Wrlt Petltlon No.)............ 01 2001 ”$§3 SMT. NAJMAVSIDDIQUI/Wil’e e!’ late A Q: :Siddiquigfiageei aboat 66 years resident of Sunder Nagar, Raipur. PEWTEONER VERSUS 1. RAIPUR MUNICIPAL ‘GORPORATION A Body Corporate constituted Under the Relevant Provisions of M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 having its office at so “" the Commissioner Municipai we ”9‘3 g’ Corporation of Raipur a?“ 2. THE' , COMMISSIONER Raipur Municipal Corporation, Malviya Road, Raipur of ”7M W FW Malviya Road, Raipur through RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 22’7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF PRHOIBITION MANDAMUS ETC. AND/ OR FOR ORDERJQL AND/ OR FOR TILE DIRECTIONS IN THE NA TURE OF THE WRITS. ,’ H ‘ 3 Petitioner/s by Shri EL? WW4 , WDCJL Respondent/ State by Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Dy.A.G. Municipal Corporation by Shri Manidra Shrivastava, Advocatg. Heard. 2) This matter was heard analogously with other matters because the common question involved is regarding demolitian of ‘buildings constructed ille ally / without permission or against permission. In certain cases tis alleged that construction is not according , “to mapsanduchange of user has been made in some cases. I-tris further alleged that construction s made is against the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, .P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. 1973 and M.P.' Bhumi Vika Niyam, 1984. It is further'alleged'that at certain places road width a d buildinglines have not been maintained causing various difficultiesi ‘luding problem of drainage; sewage, store [ea am “: ,wnc—n 3a. WWW, other (a, tannin: anew m w?No(3s3/. mm 1H 200 k my m m W Wm m mm wan W $ W n 3m newm W afea Welw 3 h WAN W s gPNo @573. goal 22/10/2001 )iK-HCZ2 of water, pollution of water and air etc. which results in denial of civil amenities, damage of roads and traffic obstruction. 3) Counsel for e petitioner submits that on the ground oi: alleged construction of buil ing as mentioned above, change of user and - other things demolition is ing apprehended and directed. It is also contended that in certain-c es,.offences have been compounded. Hid in some cases applications for compounding have been made. Counsel for the State and the reSponden oppose the petition and have filed the return and in the cases where re ms are not filed, request has been made for adopting the return ahead filed. It is pointed out that this Court has passed detailed order in W 't Petition No.716/2001 which is registered as itizen of Bilas ur Vs. Mu ici a] Cor oration Bilas ur. A copy of the said order has been placed record. 4) Counsel for th petitioners submit that in some cases there is dispute regarding floor ratio a between Raipur Development Authority and Municipal Corporation.‘ It is submitted that'according to Raipur Developmeut plan the floor ratio area is2.5 hereas according to Municipal Corporation it is a I [til-kw C e w -,-_ —z\;x. Ea W, m, W my i Mm £w1§§ma$ ’ . . mmm .. 3 Ww§mf‘?§$m .J‘. [g 1‘ 5. In those cases this questi‘ n may also be raised which will .be consi’ d« cidcd on its own merits in ac. rdanc': with ‘law‘ 1‘” 5) Counsel for th . Corpbratlon / State and other authorities / out that betause of illegal construction / .rerpondents pointed en .roachment in violation o building laws difficulties and problems have ari‘: 'en such as pollution of a r and water, obstruction in cleaning of drains, sto“ )page of flow of water, enial of civic amenities and damage of roads: It, ilso causes taffic obs ction and. hindrance in smooth ‘mffig. This Cd had passed orders from time to time on 17/8/200‘i midii-on, urt . 2f. /9/2001. 6) The Apex Co rt iii Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation E; at l‘ 'aWab Khan Gulab Khan a d others AIR 1997 SC 152) has dealt with the 1 latter in‘great detail. Thej dgment has been read in extenso. 7) Counsel for e respondents pointed out that some of the 5 )etitions have been filed b the petitioners merely on apprehension. The respondents/Corporation d authorities have inspected spot and also j made enquiries regarding‘t e construction. i {Wit} idem 8) Counsel for the re pondenté/Corporation further submitte( that 'theVpeu'tioners have rush d to the High Court though, disputa‘ .questions of facts are involved and each case resteon determination OI .those facts. In ‘certain cases ere notices are ‘not served thev an h "premature as well-res imoiher the Corporation and the authoritie: . 'rreqrriring demolition will serve otice to the petitioners and in those case: where notices have already be n served. The petitioners may now fih reply supported by ’x 'affidavi and documents ,etc., which will bi considered and decided on its wn merit in accordance with law If thlv petitioners give 1n writing wrth f1dav1t on pomis spec1fed that they are .des1rous of belng heard they sh l also be heard by the Corporation or tn the authority concerned-as far as pos51ble. 9) We have conside the submlsslons made by r1val parties gone through the record and th order sheets have been recorded 1n thi cases from time‘to time so as to rov1de opportunity to all parties to placr their respective view point. It is not necessary to reiterate them here onCt again as they form part of record! In our opinion questions sought to be 4 s r . ................................ mm Vi zoo .............................................. my ................................................ WW WW 5 %afawané¥r t. WWW raised in the petitions are disp ed questions of fact which cannot be gom into by this Court in writjurisd ction. 10) Having thus cons dered the totality of the circumstances vs: direct as under : a) Wherever ere is apprehension and notice has t. notawbeen’ isued by the Corporation or the concerned thority notice shall be issued and opportunity shall be given to £i1e reply and after reply is filed the matter shall be considered and decided on i ‘3 own merits in accordance with law. I b) Wherever notice has been given and reply has been filed further opportunity is granted to the > petitioners t‘o filereplyvalongwith documents/ affidavits if i0 desired which shall be considered and decided! on its own merits in accordance with law. i MW a) In cases where the petitioners'desire to be heard 'and makes such request duly supported ‘cy affidavit on pointé on which they want to be heard, the Corporation or the concerned shall hear them as expeditiously as authorities Till the noti‘ces are served and reply, if any, is filed status quo as on today i.er 12.10.2001 shall be maintained lly the parties. however, is given to the petitioner The liberty /petitioners to remove on their own - encroachmerlt or the obstruction in suitable cases if so ad ised so as to satisfy the ‘ Corporation concerned authorities to the extent [*fliz Th‘W‘I cooperation. possible arTi the parties shall render due m. fg‘aW D. 7 0 $ §g§ possible an authorities shal decide the matter n ‘ts own erit in accordance with'law taking ' spwt i into this a n consideration a5 well. f) o ar m fil of reply is conemed, ibis Court - S f ing e . wa incline to gran time o file reply by 3rd November 21, hower sel for the petiters prays for extension of time. ion Accordingl time is extend i the ends of y de n > justice. rely be filed on or before 9th Let p A November, 2'001. I :1: 11) With these obserivations and directions this petition is ' disposed of. Original documents filed by the parties may be returned after l ,the photocopies-are filed on record. The security, if deposited, bi r i refunded to the'petitioner as per rules. ' l t Certided photocopy #5 per rules FHA ,[ ‘ > ' I. i“ I i t Sdl- It: J i Fakhruddin Sdl- " Judge mm t at-(qas i W d l o l m s c t t , 00 ev coun