/y::'"%, S 9s«ssSfs.. ? S 'VSaS9sf:, j fe HIGH COURT OF C'HHAmSGARH AT BILA8PUR WMTPETITIQN (Q No. 3124 of2W7 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vishnu Prasad Nirmalkar S/o R.D.Nirmalkar Age 61 Years R;'o "Basant Dryclean" Tatyapara, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corooration Through Coimmssioner, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONSTnTmON OF INDIA Sinate Bench : Hon'ble Justtce Shri Sattsh K. AgnUiotri. Present: Shri C.R-Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri KashifShakil, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. Advocate General witii Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. 2. OKUER >s (Passed on 13m day ofJune, 2007) <-. In the present matter, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 01.02.2007 (Annexure P/2) issued under Section 305(1)0fthe Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, by respondent No.l/Municipal Corporation, Raijnir for tfae proposed widening ofseveral roads inthe city ofRaipur. Shri C.R.Sahu, leamed counsel appearing fer the petitioners does not want to press other points except that the compensation for damages or loss occasioned by widening ofpublic street (road) be reasonable aadjust. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner who is in possession of the buildine which is beyond Uie regular line of Dublic street has no other rieht except rieht to reasonable eompensation for any damases or loss that may be caused as a consequences in fhe process ofwidening ofthe publie street (road). The petitioner, in this petition is guestionina the basis for grant of compensation for any damages or loss oceasioned by them. Leamed counsel further submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to invoke provisions ofsection387 ofthe Act, 1956 in the event the petitioner is dissatisfied with the amount ofcompensation for damages or loss, eranted bv the respondent/Corooration. Shri Kashif Shakil, leamed counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 2 do not controvert the submission made bv the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is disposed, ofwith liberty reserved to the petitioner to invoke provisions ofSeetion 387 ofthe Act, 1956 for appointment of arbitrator in accordance wifh the said provisions, if so advised. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge