gt)? a ; J‘Ei‘m» w Amggwiwm $~mwmw4 wwwMWMAAJH .g aHQEwwzw Q aJ ‘wm‘gwm ,Qrnv .Wmrmww awM.wwWwmmwmwg $4 ,Ew ESQ W$mm~wwmmmQmwE4M wamnmgm my‘ymmbm wxm K6 QE§§mr . mgE “Kwwcmwm Fwmm ”mag”Amwmm? wwméw wmmE.m3 Emm awmgwmwnv mm?” mwgw ma» wmam. EM wka 94m mg? .mmmwEAGQV gammomwm“ QQawQamam wwmmmgm wwmgamw : H m c m x i a m x a w n E:Ee€& Qangwmmc? Wmmaw mmuw ¢§mEe mauw ”gammyMmnwwwmg wag; mozdwfwx. w WW. m w m g w g v Wmmwg. mEwww, wwwww wwagwwwmwg Wk . wmwmwykkw NMQwwahmuwmWwwmymurwwEw‘wlwwMHwmQg wwmJ W‘Wwww? w rwm Liri, .wxg—ncaz K » Bra. "Amrim, 3&1? ma ma am‘p7 W mammW'QtgggJ;%2/WIH 2601 mg swim mm Hfga mmamuygfW P.N0 (3&7 /2001 v Petitioner/s by Shri @% WW MUFM ‘ Respondent / State by Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Dy.A.G. Municipal Corporation by Shri Manidra Shrivastava, Advocate. Heard . 2) This matter was heard analogously with other connected matters because the common question involved is regarding demolition of buildings constructed illegally / i without permission or against permission. In certain cases it is alleged that construction is not actio to maps and changeof user has been made in some cases. It is further - alleged that construction so made is against the provisions of MP. Municipal Corporation Act, MP. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and MtP. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984i It’is further'alleged that at certain places road width and building lines have not been maintained causing various difficulties including problem of drainage, sewage, store n.“ vn [ate afar} (a gm; maxim, whim, Wamz Al , m V m {mm WE 200 ma Wm 1i f’enérW . . 2 . _ ‘25 W 24T€¥1 of water, pollution of water and air etc, which results in denial 0f Civil 1 amemries, damage of row s End traf'xir. Obstruction. 3) Counsel for t e petitioner submits that or- the ground of :31lcged construction of buil' ing as mentioned above, change of user and ' other things demolition is eing apprehended and directed. It is also l i contended that in certain c ses offences have been compounded and in I r some cases applications for compounding have been made Counsel for the State and the respondenl oppose the petition and have filed the return b, and in the cases where re, ns 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.716/2001 which is registered as Citizen of Bilaspur Vs. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. A copy of the. said order has been placed record. 4) Counsel for th petitioners submit that in some cases there is 7 dispute regarding tloor ratio ea between Raipur Development Authority and 1 Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that according to Raipur Development plan the floor, ratioarea is 2.5 hereas according to Municipal Corporation it is i l [rink ates: 1.5. In those cases this question may also be raised which will be considered and demd-xd on its on meiiis in 35;:i3rdmum MA lay; L 5) Counsel for thé Corporation / State and oilier authoriiies f respondents pointed out that because of illegal construction ,1 encroachment in violation ol‘ building laws difficulties and problems have arisen such as pollution 0i alr and water, obstruction in cleaning of drains, stoppage of fiow of water, denial of civil" amenities and damage of roads It also causes traffic obsmiction and hindrance in smooth traffic. This Court had passed orders from time to time on 17/8/2001 and on . 28/9/2001. 6) The Apex Cotrt in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others (AIR 1997 sc 152) has dealt with the matter in great detail. The judgment has been read in extenso. 7) Counsel for e respondents pointed out that some of the petitions have been filed b the petitioners merely on apprehension. The respondents/Corporation d authorities have inspected spot and, also made enquiries regarding e construction. {air} m XH I-‘fuzz k /\”w mgr tram ( I n(1 200 F g a K ‘ v W 1mm? {E123 Ifm m WW Fm . . 3 . . m: 31W 3m XI-HC-22 8) ‘ i that the petitioners have rush questions of facts are involved Counsel for the respondentS/Corporation further submitted ed to the High Court though dispute-o and each case rests on determination am . : where notices are not served they an those facts. In certain cases premature as well as in other cases the Corporation and the authorities where notices have already been served. The petitioners may now fiir considered and decided on its own merit in accordance with law. If the affidavit on points specified that they are petitioners give in writing with desirous of being heard, they shall also be heard by the Corporation or b) the authority concerned as far as possible. We have considered the submissions made by rival part.e. gone through the record and the order sheets have been recorded in‘ ‘tha cases from time‘to time so as to provide opportunity to all parties to plac< their respective View point It is not necessary to reiterate them here one In our opinion questions sought to be again as they form part of record requiring demolition will serve notice to the petitioners and in those caser 9) and documents etc., which will be reply supported by affidavits _.,-_—.- _ {Tea any: ..5.. raised in the petitions are disputted questions of fact which cannot be gone i . into by this Comt in writ jurisd cti‘on. 10) Having thus cons1d1‘ered the totality of the circumstances we direct as under : a) b) Wherever there is apprehension and notice has not been issued by the Corporation or the concerned aluthority notice shatl be issued and opportunity shall be given torfsge reply and after reply is filed the matter shall "be coraiéered and decided on is own merits in accordance with law.» Wherever notice has been given and reply has been filed firrther opportunity is granted to the 7i t . petitioners tlo file reply alongwith documents/ affidavits if 10 desired which shall be considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. l g g (1. d) In cases whQre the petitioners desire to be heard and makes'such request duly supported by } affidavit on points on which they want to be heard, fhe Corparatiorl or the concerned authoritk—‘s shall hear them as expeditiously as possible and the parties shall render due cooperation. Till the notices are: served and reply, if any, is filed status quo as on today i.e. 12.10.2001 shall be maintained by the parties. The liberty ihowever, is given to the petitioner /petitioners to remove on their own encroachme t or the obstruction in suitable cases if so ad ised so as to satisfy the Corporation concerned authorities to the extent {as are) 6. P é #Wmwawm L, r M a/rofand authorltles shall dende the matter I on its own Twit in accordance w1th law takmg into this aspéct in consideration as well. i f) bo H V far as 1111 ..,! g a: . reply 1s . concemczl; this l Conan was incline to grant time to file reply by 3rd however counsel for the time, November, {2001, l petitioners lprays for extension of Accordingly! time is extended in the ends of x justice. reply be filed on 01 before 9th November, ll) W1th these obse ations and directions this petition dlsposed of Or1g1nal documen filed by the parties may be returned after the photocoples are f1led on record refunded to the pet1t1oner as pe rules i/N The security, if deposited, bl rsnr* gl-Hcaz‘ ~./ , WWWW ,bxb m W . .....................................‘Fa 200 .............................................. ma ...............................:............... Certified photocopy s per rules. / ‘R / K X \ sdl- ' Chief mace ‘i ‘ Judge