Ma $§E¥ w:1 ,w f M E43 £53 : yja#v msmw :awai. cwmw.JEEZwmFI azw? :3? m . Era 1mm, mkm, W“W )e wiP NO \‘3 ‘\ “3/2001 491v; w”; ~ r f ( , 7 r1 > _ Ramona/s by Sm Fr D maKQR Raw Respondent / State by Dr. NLK; Shukla, learned Dy.A.G. ' Municipal? Corpmation by ShriManidra Shrivastava, Advr/cate. Heard. 2) This matter was heard analogou:;1v with other connected 3 matters because the wmmon question invaived is regarding’demolition of ”buildings constructed ille%ally / without permission or against permission, In certain cases t i3 alieged that construction is not according K ,to mapsand‘wchange of user has beenmade in. some cases. It is further alleged that. construction s made is against the provisions of MP. Municipal Corporation Act, .P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. V 1973 and MP. Bhumi Vika Niyam,‘l984. It is further’alleged that at certain places road width a d building lines have not been maintained causing variousdifficultiesi x hiding probiern of drainage/seWag‘e, store [as am Tia WWW fa"??? fa" Rm m? arm of water, pollution of wate and air etc. which results in denial OF Civil l amenities/ danmge of roads d ‘rraiflc obstruction, 3) Counsel for like 9etitione.:v submits that on the ground ry’ 1 alleged construction of buil *‘ing as merm'oned above, change of user anai other things demolition is eing apprehended and directed. It is also contended that ('trtain c srs oftence: have been compounded and in i some cases applications for compounding have been made. Counsel for the State and the respondent‘s oppose the petition and have filea the return and in the cases where re rns are not filed, request has been made for adopting the return alread filed, It is pointed out that this Court has passed detailed order in W it Petition No.716,-"2t)f’l'2 which is registered am Citizen of Filaspur Vs. Mu icipal Corporation, Bilaspur. A copy ot the said order has been placed l . record. 4) Counsel for th petitioners submit that in some cases there {:4 dispute regarding floor ratio ea between Raipur Development Authority an/d Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that according to Raipur Development plan the tloor ratio area is 2.5 hereas according to Municipai Corporation it is x [we am W‘Wl‘émm, TF1 200 mm {aw ' m .. '2 .. WW WWA $Wméw XL l {(122 3a 3mm Wwg, WW? Wan WW 1.5. In those cases this questi¢ )n may also be raised which will be considered and d'ecidaf. oz! 11s own merits V1 accfx‘..amc Mm 1r 5) Counsel for t’hig Corporation 1’ 3tate and other authoriiies / respondents pointed miti that because of iiiegai construction encroachment in violation 0 building laws difficulties and problems have arisen such as pollution of a r and water, obstruction in cleaning of drains, stoppage of flow of water, e'nial of Civic amenities and damage of roads. It also causes traffic obstr ction and hindrance in smooth trafl'ic‘ This Court had passed orders from time to time on 17/8/2001 and on . 28/9/2001. 6) Nawab Khan Gulab Khan a «j. others (AIR 199')” SC 152) has dealt with the matter in great detail. Thej nigment has been read in extenso. Counsel for t e respondents pointed out that some of the petitions have been filed b the petitioners merelv on apprehension The respondents/Corporation made enquiries regarding t e construction. 7) [11??? afgri The Apex Co rt in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. d authorities have inspected spot and also XI—HC-22 éimm 8) Counsel for the respondents/Corporation further submitted that the paiifioriers have rushed f0 the High Court thougri_ disputea’ uuestions of faCts are involved and each case rests on determination 0t those facts. In certain. cases where notices are not served they arr premature as well as in other (ases the Corporation. and the authorities requiring demolition will serve notice to the petitioners and in those cases Where notices have already be n served. The petitioners may now file reply supported by affidavi and documents etc., which will be considered and decided on its wn merit in accordance with law. If the petitioners give in writing with fidavit on points specified that they are desirous of being heard, they sh 1 also be heard by the Corporation or b'}. Mme the authority concerned as far as possible. 9) We have consider the submissions made by rival parties, 5 gone through the record and thxe order sheets have been recorded in th< cases from time’to time so as to rovide opportunity to all parties to place their respective view point. It islnot necessary to reiterate them here. once ‘ i again as they form part of record! In our opinion questions sought tobe > l i v l t _L_‘..... ,. .. .. XI»HC~22 WW, Wi”n11? a”m mm 9‘7 raised in the petitions are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gong ( into by this Ccurt in Wm jurt-d'tiiora i 10) direct as under : Wherever t ere is apprehension and notice has not been i sued by the Corporation or the concerned thoritv notice shall be issued and opportunity shall be given to£ge reply and after reply is file the matter shall be consiéered and decided on i own merits in accordance with law. l , I Having 'thus con a) b) s dered the tos'ality of the Circumstances we i l ; Wherever nLtice has been given and reply has been filed f rther opportunity is granted to the petitioners go file reply‘alongwith documents/ affidavits if o desired which shall be considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. i i l i , . .....................................‘Frvt 200 mama; .............................................. W1 ................................................ mm mm WW mmmm .. 5 WWW WW ésakmm .. XI-HC~22 sé mm ‘E‘L 200 ma mm WW mm%a mmmm WW WW a: am 31am .. 6 .. c) In cases whe}re the petitioners desire to be heard i I and makesgsuch request duiy suppor ed by 1 i affidavit onipoints 3r which they want to be heard, the Corporatien or the concerned authorities hail hear them as expeditiously a3 possible a ‘i the parties shall render due cooperation. d) Till the noti es are served and reply, if any, is filed status o as on today i.e. 12.10.2001 shall be maintained y the parties. e) The liberty however, is given to the petitioner I ,lpetitioners to remove on their own encroachme t or the obstruction in suitable cases if so ad ised so as to satisfy the Corporationlconcerned authorities to the extent l we aw: XI-HC-zz r QH am m . ..................................... mm m 200 ..............................................m ..................... mm mm mw mmmvféa . . 7 WWWftWm $ W m T . possible and authorities shall decide the matter on its own 1%!13rit in accordance with law taking l int-o this in consideration well. aspect as f} So far as lilifng of reply is concerned, this Court I was inclinec. to grant time to file reply by 3rd l l November, l2001, however counsel for the petitioners aprays for extension of time. is extended in the ends of Accordinglyitime t justice. Lei; reply be filed on or before 9th November, 2'001. \ t 1]) With these obse ations and directions this petition disposed of. Original documen filed by the parties may be returned after l the photocopies are filed on irecord. The security, if deposited, bi l refunded to the' petitioner as pe rules. // 7i: \ Certified photocopy s per rules. //./// // 9dr // “t“d¢‘\(\ V3V~ < i \Y‘ 3“dge ;_.; Jf/ l I8m * i i 1 li—‘i *‘Uil