^^ ^^^vS-f^^":-?-^- IN THEHIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W. P. NO.S5^70F 2003 ,' PETITIONER J^" ...'^ ^\^i!:>0"" y B. P. Sharma, S/o Late Pyarelal Sharma, aged About 76 years, Occupation Retd. Chief Engineer, Deptt. Of Irrigation, R/o A-32, Vidyanagar,Bilaspur,Tahsil 8s District Bilaspur [CG] VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur [Chhattisgarh] 2. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur [CG] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2267227" OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMU^,PROHIBITION AND OTHERSUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: ^± 7" XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f<-ii?h <3Ti§^T 5b^i<=t) ^f^a ^ ^? ^t^icn^, ^•al^4i<o, fa^i'yy ^..&...(.,tlo...3.SA7./.^^ MPWffWWc^ •f^^T' 3^'^^iw^r llds Constiltution 09.02.2004 Shri Maaiadra Shrivastav^ The petitioner has raised Article 226 & 227 ofthe aad ia possession of fhe laad Patwari HaUca No. 110, Khasrt popularly kaown as "Dipupara| registered sale deed purchased 1974, However, the possessio|i with bv fhe functionaries of titie of pubMc work of constoructionj developinent of approach road areas, Perforce the petitioner declaration aad mjunction, whi^ court has also disiiiissed the the corporation continued to of roads, draiaages, bridges aad] of fhe petitioner aiid developed i^ only fhis, the Corporatiou prcpared a xnap showing fhe e^ the petitioner as a pubUc road} rights of ofhers to be created. Court jzidgiaent ia favour of th| found that so inany persons aa€^ usuig tihie laxid of the petitio: ^1^^1'i TiP^ ^ f^^ ii^l^K '^ari^r^T^T i, counsel for ftie petitioner. gnevaace by fhis petition under of India tiiat he is the owner ^dineasuring 4,08 acres sittiated ia No.202, at Revenue Division, area, The petitioner fhrough a Jfhe said piece of laiid ia the year of fhe petitioner was iaterfered l^umcipal Corporation ia the naine of draiaage, tamng of road aad Ito other colonies aad residential to file a civil suit for grant of )h was decreed aad ffaie appellate of fhe respondents, However, on fhe activities of construction jjoioing six ofher roads to the laad as a road of the Corporation. Not road, drams etc. aad also ^it aad approach froni the laad of aad fhereby allowed easinentai^7 all was done iaspite of fhe civU petitiouer. When the petitioner rcsidents of the area have started >^ier as a public road wifh fuU Ilad ap^eal cosfy constructed Tliis !+ XI-HC-22 3>?T^T^?I ^i?h ^^ ^wf^ 'Hi^a 1 L+- '3^? ^l^ltd^, ^•al^<t<o, fa<yii^y ^.W...fi.:..3.5.4.7./^ ^ NlH<?ia ^*ll<sb fa^<^' W^T^<iT^R^rfN (,<Z^) cooperation aad tacit conse4l Corporatiou made aU tlie arraa^ road, fhe petitioner was left wifji appUcation to fhe Corporation ti|3 part of fhe pubHc road aad it w^ fhe pubUc at large, Corporatk>n | However, ftie petitioner's appUc| perfunctonly rejected by Corporation, against which the before the Conunittee aad fhe Cdi of fhe petitioner siace last mor^ niade reiniaders but fhey were n<i I have heard learaed couns Leamed coiinsel for fhe efforts inade by fhe petitioner decided aad it is stUl inore thaa two years. Haviag heard leamed co| regard to fhe facts aad question has been raised ia fhis Coiamittee of the respondents- appeal ofthe petitioner, The Co| fhe appeal aad decide the same is beiag denied jfrom his Corporation has converted his ^4$dl41^ ^m^^ fe^ <l^i<^i< ^sri^TOsn^T of fhe Corporation aiid fhe |ements to convert it uito a pubUc no other option but to inake aa tat as fhe laiid has now becoine a ^zild be impossible for Tiim to stop |should pay conipensatlon to hiin, ition was arbitorarily, iUegaIly aad jfche Comiaissioner, Muiiicipal ^etitioner has preferred an. appeal s|niniittee is not decidiag fhe appeal fhaa two years, The petitioner ^t answered or attended to. \el for the petitioner. ^titioner subinits fhat iaspite of aU appeal of tfae petitioner is not before the Conmiittee siace last P^titiK tt5.e circunifetaaces ^insel for the petitioner, haviag of fhe case, very Imiited ^etition regardiag fhe fact fhat fhe porporation is not deciding fhe t^iunittee ought to have considered ^u its own inerit aad the petitioner rights, as fhe respondent- into a public land. le^al laid i^^s^ ^^^&. -^sSs^ XI-HC-22 ^•TT^I'SFT f^ira'^Tji^i ^^ich ^(f^[ .)• 75? V^Ni<n^ ^•a1<y4i<o, fa<^i^^< 3H^T 'q^W _»..h(.:P.:..S.-?:.^, WR^fT$hN8<3^ •^^ST' ^i^i'^nw^f^r (3J circumstetaces In fhe facts aad directed to decide fhe appeal of possible not later fhaa fhree Wifh fhe above direction, Consequently I.A, No, 10 staads disposed of Certified copy as per rules| <»»l^t<r(<il^^|N<?iT'9 f^^ iFsi^K ^3?P<m3?T^i of fhe case, the Conmuttee is fhe petitioner as expeditiously as nioi^ths froin today< t^ie petition staiids disposed of. .58/2003 for urgent hearing also Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge