^^ HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 5227 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Smt. Manjulate Mishi'a, aged about 65 years, D/o late Asnbika Prasad Awasthi, R/o Strcet No. 1, Sundai' Nagar, Raipur (CG). VERSUS Mumcipal Coiporation, Jagdalpur Through Conmiissioner, Municipal Corporation. Jagdalpur (CG), r • < (WRIT PETITION LrNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Me Mr.SatishK.AsniiioMJ,) Fresent : Shri Ur. N.K. Shukla, 8r. Advocate with Shri Dilip Dubey, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Shi'i A.S. Kachhwaha., Advocate for fhe respondent QMAL.OMP^M (Passed oss ii^dsyofFebs'aaiy, 2009) Wrtii the consent ofthe pailies, fhe matter is taken up for hearmg fmally. Leamed comisel appearmg fbrthe petitioner submits that as per fhe reply field by the respondent corporatioiL the corporation, at the instance ofthe Govei'nment, is developing the area aad granting Patta havmg Sheet Nos. 117 and 107, Plot Nos. 2/5 aiid 1/42, situated at Kachourapai-a, Santoshi Ward, Behind Forest Depot, Jagdalpur, under Rajeev Ashray Yojaiia (for short 'Yojana'), and allotting plots to the residents ofthat area who comes imder Below the Poverty Line. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioxier submits that the laiid in dispute is under ownei'ship ofthe petitioner and without acquiring the land, the land has been used tbr flie said Yojana. k ,.ST%. /£^:..-'l 's"^^'^,. ^ '. ./' J. •;:^ ^;-^/ 3. ^-"^^^"' 4. 2 Leamed counsel appeaiing for tiie respondent corporation submits that the land in dispute is Nazul land not the private land owned by fhe petitioner. There is also a dispute with regai'd to title aiid ownersliip ofthe land. There is certain documents provided by the petitioner, but stil! this petition caniiot be decided by this Court. The present petition mvolves the questions which have to be decided by the jurisdictional competent court.It rcquires examination of evidence, witnesses and proper enquiry. This caii be dosie oiily by a competetitjurisdictional court. In view of the above, this petition is not maintamable and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reser/ed to the petitioner, 011 his request, to take recourse to competent jurisdictional court, if so advised, under the provisions oflaw. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge