~-:- '< <-' PETITSONSI about 48 ysars, Mohan La!wani, ag< son of Late Shri Chandiram Laiwani, rssidsnt of in front of Jsiswsnl S^w Mill; Sihawa Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) Versu: piEQOn^inei-iT® '? •S"\.:G-!sS^ ••aafi'-iaSaf'Giiv E ^S i The Stats of Chhattlsgarh, Through th® District Collector, Dlstt. Dhamtari (C.G.) The Secreta.'y, Department of Publlc & Works, Dau Kalvan Singh Bhawan, Mantrslsv. Raiour fC.G.) The Sub Divislonai Officer, Pubfic Works Deoartment Sub DivisiQn L/iiSmLai'ii u'Sfct. UHei'Tit^ii (^if,\3.^ The Tahslldar, Dhamtarl, Distt. Dhamtan (Chhattisgarh) ~he Nagar Palik Parishad Dhamtari, 'fH i'/^i irtH ^ f'l"./s ^,Hi-'"s'? ^'Y^i'^i if'h;*?s ("^'•fti^.^. Dhamtari (C.G.) '^^c'nt'. Shr! V/.R. Tlw^ri, !B9JHQd couns@l for ths pi8tltjon©r. Shri Yashwant Singh, Searnsd Govt. Advocate for the State. iP^^s^'rf f^n 4 Anril. '?H0.^4E \ i—'~r-s^^-'-&^- SS "i - •LJ-73::S^ -^-^B T^? iuE ^ This writ Det'tion is directed aaainst the riotice marked as Annexure P/1 produced at paae 10 ofthe material DaDers dated 08-03-2006, issued by the Sub Divlsional Ofricer, Public Vvorks Department, Sub Division Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, the third respondent herein, alleging that the petiuoner has enoroached a space ad-measuring 10 foet x 93 feet (930 square feeft belonging to the Pubiic Works Department which forms part of s Qublic rosd' snd di'rcctinQ th^ ostitlon^r to f$n"i0vs tho iilscisl constfuctlon mad^ bv him in ths ssld olot of Isnd whils sdmlnistsrinci s Shreat that if he faiis to do so, the authorities would»takeappropriate steps to remove/demolish the ilsegai constmctlon. The petitioner, it is true, has il: <.;:' '5^ ^ «^\ -s.- denied the assertion made in the impugqed notice by the third respondent. According to the petitioner, he purchased the subject plot of fand under a Registered sale deed dated 16-04-1986 and since then, he has been in iawful posssssion of the said plot as its absolute o'A'ner. (2) Having regard to the pleading of e pet'rtioner and what is stated by the third respondent in the impugned notice, what arises for decision- making is a factual controversy. That controvsrsy cannot be resolved in a suminary proceeding under Articie 226 of the Constitution 'of india. The dispute brought before the Court relates to titte ofthe subjectplot, whether it js th®property of the Pub'ic Works Department or property of ihe DstltiQnsi' ss cisimfid bv him. Such a, diSDuts csn b@ rssolysd Qnlv bv 'wsv of a competent Civi! Court. However, it appealed to the Court by learned counse! for the Detitioner tli.at there is imminent danaer of demo'ishlnci the construction made bv him tn the subiect plot of land and, therefore, the respondent-authorities be prevenied from resorting to dernofitlon for a reasonab.ie tirne so that the petitioner couid wor.k'out his legai ren-iedies before the jurisdictiona! Civi! Court. f3j Hsvinci heard Isamsd GOUHSSJ for th9 DSi'tiss. l diSDos^ of ths writ petition directing the petitioner and the respondents to maintain status-quo tha.t obtains as on today with regard to the subject plot of land for a period of five weeks from todav. All the contentlons raised by the parties In the impugned notice and in th®pleadings or the petitioner are left open to be agitated berore the jurisdictioria! Civjl Court, in the event of fhe petitioner instituting a suit for isaai rernedv. in the facts and ciroumstances of the case, the parties shat! bear their respective costs. M) Certifled CODV as oer rules. Sd/- ChiefJustice