^A v\\<!^ \^ sw^if qn l<-<i<* ^sn STT^T »i+iic»i ^ 'S^ '^niw<i, atily'ic, fa<ti'My *tWVll ^»,|q,"-•••••••• -—^ 200 sn^r1!^)' ('yfg^T) TCIIW sfer siii^T (Sinale Bench: Hon'bte W.P. fc (Petitwn U/A 22 PetH-ioners RamWi 1. Shivl 2. 3. Mah^sh All of Versui Nurcyan Rdrthi, aged about 56 years. Kumar Rathi, aged about 49 years. Kumar Rcrthi, aged aSbout 46 years. S/o Siri Shonkar Lal Rathi, resident Uakhe Naaar, Sudhir Mukherjee Ward, olre Respondents 1. Mun Comtnissioner. (C6)| 2. Coddc 3. Bhaifat Present: Mr. Virendra Sharma, Advocate fl»r Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate foi) Mr. Alok Bakshi, 6ovt. Advocate 17.9.2008 Heard. By this petition under Artfc petitipner has prayed for followir|g "10.1. That on oppropriate commanding th«? rest <^l*iT<'i<(1l '^PTC'ff ^f 1:ST^ <R»rt$t< ^siRnsiitsi Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishral No.5192/2008 of Cbnsti+ution of India) cipal Corporation, Rayur Through Municipal Corporation ftaipur ctor, Raipur [C.6.] Lal Siarma, S/o Shri l-lcir Sooal the petitioner. respondent No.l. ;or respondent No.2. cle 226 af the Constitution of India, the reliefs;- writ in the nature of cert-iorori be issued wndent Nol not to construct permanent r^MiKl 1h ]f^?il^t tiT fhfi I^TiTtoh^lnSt hbiJiSfi; WtthOUf ftdllN^ propcr A . - n XEHe—78 Sf^l W ft-fi'* crar 3Fn^r ai^iqi TEET »A||A||d'4, ^tll'M'Ko, f°l<'11'M>i< WRCtl **4rai ^200 sn^i Tra?r ('yi^'^i) ^nw^fer aii^i —2-- private persons over cbM^41'1 ^WK^ ^ ^^t •<f«T^!< ^stRnsi^i maisurement and reijiaining atl the encroachment made by the the corporations kind. 10.2 That the entire reco^-d from the possession of -the respondent No.l may be called fo^." Srievance of the petitioner crea 1489 sq. ft-. si-tuated at Lak js that he is the owner of Plot Nos.9 & 10 is ^ie Nogar, Raipur. He has constructed a house on •the said ptots. There is ^ 20 feet wide road in front of the house of the petitioner, however, bec4use of encroachment by his neighbour, width available for construction qp road is only 10 feet and therefore, the respondent Corporation is constn^cting permanent concrete road over the land belongin9 to the petitwner. dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P-4] Section 401 of the AAunicipal Corf|oration Act even then the Corporation is continuing with the construction ^he petitioner ha5 already served notice on the respondent Corporation under 6f concrete road. Further grievcnce of the petitioner is that if the said l^ichcha Road is comert'ed into permonent concrete roadiby the respondent ^orporation, then it would be difficult for the petitioner to remove the illegally constructed permdnent concrete road. The petitioner is remedil^ss as he ccnnot institute civil suit for establishing his titte without expii(y of statutory period of 30 days. I have heard leamed couns^l for the petitioner. i L^ (3€ '3~5ET "41'41d'il, SSnll'M'IS, fsidl'Hy 311^1 ^iT Rl-fi'* 'OTT 3TI^ff si)*ii<n ^ Wll thlltlt •W( 200 sn^T 'f^: ('^3^?) wnw ^ifrt sii^i ^- After heoring leamed cou nature of dispute raised by the ( is of the opinion that dispul adjudication of this petition vAvu '+lllcKfl'f lllint'? fe'zt rf<«SK i?3ffi!H3II^I nsel for the petitioner <ind considering the etitioner in the instnnt petition, thisCourt- ed questions of fact are involved for h cannot be gone. into in a writ petition and accordhigly, this petition is disfjosed of with liberty to -the petitioner to establish his titfe right by filin^ properly constiluted civit suit before the competent civit court'. Certified copy as per rute^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge