1 1. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.221/2009 Hansraj Sharma V/s State of Raj. & ors. 2. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.222/2009 Nand Lal Sharma V/s State of Raj. & ors. 3. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.233/2009 Bhagwan Das Soni V/s State of Raj. & ors. 4. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.264/2009 Veer Singh V/s State of Raj. & ors. 5. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.265/2009 Mahendra V/s State of Raj. & ors. 6. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.267/2009 Smt.Bhan Kaur V/s State of Raj. & ors. 7. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.269/2009 Chiman Lal V/s State of Raj. & ors. 8. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.270/2009 Satpal Singla V/s State of Raj. & ors. 9. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.273/2009 Subhash Kumar V/s State of Raj. & ors. 10. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.274/2009 Hardeep Singh V/s State of Raj. & ors. 23.4.2009 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Deepak Verma Hon'ble Mr.Justice Prakash Tatia Dr.Sachin Acharya for the appellants. Mr.R.L.Jangid, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. Since common questions of law and facts were involved in all aforesaid appeals, they have been taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the record. Facts as appearing in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.221/2009 Hansraj Sharma V/s State of Raj. & ors. would be taken into consideration. 2 Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 9.2.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1061/2009. Appellant had approached writ-court that on the strength of order passed by Division Bench of this Court on 12.1.2007 in D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.789/2006, the construction, which has been made by appellant, cannot be directed to be removed. According to appellant, he has not made any construction on Government land or Government road and thereby he has not encroached upon the same. Learned Single Judge, after having heard learned counsel for the parties, referring to the operative part of the order passed by Division Bench in WP(PIL) No.789/2006 decided on 12.1.2007, came to the conclusion that direction as contained in the said judgment of the Division Bench, which was affirmed by Apex Court, has to be complied with in letter and spirit. It was further held by learned Single Judge that if any clarification is to be sought by appellant, then he should approach Division Bench of this Court. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition of the appellant came to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for respondents informed that pursuant to the order passed by Division Bench of this Court on 12.1.2007 in WP (PIL) No.789/2006, more than 1500 encroachers have already been removed, but some of them have still been left, as due to some bonafide mistake, earlier notices could not be served to them. 3 There appears to be serious dispute whether present appellant is encroacher or not. If so, then to what extent he has encroached upon. Our attention has been drawn to the notices issued by respondent-Municipal Corporation to appellant, where in the first notice issued to him, some other dimensions have been given and in second notice, some other dimensions have been given, which is indicative of the fact that respondent- Municipal Corporation itself is not certain as to how much area has actually been encroached upon by appellant. Learned counsel for respondents, during the course of arguments, presented some maps before us, which according to him, have been prepared recently after taking measurements. Despite our search, we were not able to find out name of present appellant-Hansraj Sharma in the same. This is how the maps have been prepared by respondents. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles and also safeguarding the interest of the parties, it is desirable that respondent-Municipal Board should serve a fresh notice to appellant clearly mentioning therein the area said to have been encroached upon by appellant and calling upon him to satisfy with regard to the title and construction having been made in accordance with law, after obtaining necessary permission. In case appellant is not able to satisfy the respondent- Municipal Board, then, of-course, the Board would be at liberty to remove the encroachments forthwith without granting any further time to 4 him. Needless to say that the Board will have to prove that the alleged construction made by appellant is falling either on the public road or on the public park. If it is found so, then no further latitude would be shown to the appellant and encroachment would be removed forthwith. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this and connected appeals stand finally disposed of, but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be retained in the file of each case. (Prakash Tatia)J. (Deepak Verma)CJ Parmar