$ HIGH COURT Wri1' Pe‘ri‘l'ion OF CHHATTISGARH (c) No.10315/2009 BILASPUR 0 Pefifioner Pur'shoHam Sarin. Vs Responden*s Sfafe of Chhaffisgar‘h & ofher‘s Wr-iT Petition (c) No.1053/2009 Petitioner ‘ Ku. Urvashi Agarwal, Vs Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others AND Writ Petition (c) No.1574/2009 Petitioners Dinesh Kumar & another Vs Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others Post FOR ORDER ON 22”” APRIL, 2009 r-wf‘sai Dhireadra Mishra Judge \ Writ Petition (c) No.1086/2009 .i", / i Petitioner Jeev Rakhon Pansari,. Vs Respondents The Municipal Corporation, Raipur & ’ another —m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Wri‘l' Pe‘tMon (c) No.1035/2009 Pe‘h‘iioner Respondents Vs PurshoHam Sarin, Propriefor Shiv Sugar Resfauranf, S/o La‘re Shri Bhim Sen Sarin, Aged abouf 53 years, R/o S’ra’rion Road, Lodhipara, Raipur, DisTricT—Raipur (CG) R 1.5fm‘e of Chha‘Hisgarh Through: Secrefar‘y, Departmenf of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. Disfricf CollecTor, Disfr'icT-Raipur' (6.6.) 3. Addi’rional Tehsildar, Raipur‘, Disfr‘icf-Raipur' (C.G.) 4. Raipur Municipal Corporafion, Through- Its Commissioner, Raipur, Disiricf—Raipur (CG 5. Ami’r Kafar‘iya, Commissioner, Raipur Municipal Corpora'l’ion, Raipur, Dis‘rric‘i—Raipur‘ (C.G.) Writ Petition (c) No.1053/2009 Petitioner Respondents Vs Ku. Urvoshi Agarwal, D/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Aged about 45 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG) 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.$. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). District Collector, District-Raipur (06.) 3. Additional Tehsildar, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)Raipur 4. Municipal Corporation, Through— Its Commissioner, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG) 5. Amit Katariya, Commissioner, Raipur Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District—Raipur (C.G.) ) Page 2 of 42 §V at v? Wri‘r Peti‘l’ion (c) No.1086/2009 Petitioner Jeev Rakhan Pansari, son o Shri Jageshwar‘ Prasad Pansar'i, aged about 45 year-s, Propriefor M/s Avi Pun & General Sfor'es, Stafion Road, Raipu'r', residen? of Lily Chowk, Raipur'. Vs 1. The Municipal Corporafion, Raipur, fhrough fhe Commissioner, Municipal Corpora‘rion, Malviya Chowk Raipur'. 2.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporafion, Ruipur AND Respondenis Wri'r Pe‘riiion (c) No.1574/2009 Petitioners 1. ’Dinesh Kumar' (Propriefor Geefo General Sfores), S/o Parasr‘am Lakhwani, Aged abouf— 41 years, R/o Naharpara, Near old Deshbandhu Press, Raipur, DisTrici Raipur (CG) 2. Gangumal (Propriefor Sai Baba Fruifs), s/o Lafe Shri Jameyafmal Chablani, Aged abouf 63 year's, R/o Sfa‘rion Road, Raipur, Disfr‘icf- Raipur (C.6.) Respondents 1.5Tafe of ChhaHisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Urban Administration & Development, D.K.5. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2.District Collector, District-Raipur (C.G.)‘ 3.Municipal Corporation, Through- Its Commissioner, Raipur, District- Raipur (CG) Vs Present: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate 'r. Alok Bakshi, Govt.'Advocate M Mr. Sanjay K Agarwal, Advocate with ’ Mr: K; 'Shakeel, Advocate. For petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1035/09, 1053/09 & 1086/09 For petitioners in W.P‘ (c) No.1574/O9. For the respondent-State in ail the writ petitions. For the respondents—Corporation in all the writ petitions f Page 3 of 42 (Passed on O Qlwgpril, R D R 2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J 1. The above pefifions are being disposed of by This common order, as the pefifioner‘s herein have impugned fhe acfion ini‘riamd by the respondenfs whereby fhey are being dispossessad from fhe lawful possession of The Nazul lands by demolishing their shops/residenfiai houses construcfed over fhe land. . Case of The pefh‘ioners namely Purshoffam Sareen & Kum. Urvashi Agarwal, in brief, is 'lha’r the pefi‘rioners and ofher shopkeepers have cons’rrucfed their shops on Subhash Marg between Railway Station and Telgahani Naka, Raipur. They are in peaceful and settled possession over their shops since decades and the said shops are their sole means of livelihood. In the year 1940 a dispute arose about the ownership of the disputed land between the then Malgujars‘ and the Government of C.P. oi Berar with respect to the ownership of the disputed land and the Nagpur High Court held that the State of Madhyo Pradesh is the exclusive owner of the land. After the aforesaid decision the Government of Madhya Pradesh legalized the possession of the petitioners & the petitioners' ancestral interest & title and agreed to give permanent lease to each person for a period of 30 years on a condition of payment of premium as determined by the concerned authority after they complied With the condition. Recommendations were made for permanent Patta for 30 years with renewal clause for another 30 years. Misc Petition No 1231/92 was filed in the High Court ’Of Madhya Pradesh and in the said petition an interim order ,jrAi’I’ Page 4 of 42 Qf was passed on 8.4.1992 in favour of fhe pefi'rioner‘s. The then Addifional Collecfor and fhe Administrator of ’rhe Municipal Corporafion addressed a Ie'rfer (Annexure P-2) To fhe associafion cafegoricaHy mentioning therein that the encroachments within 65 ft. width over the road in question shall only be removed. The above miscellaneOus petition was disposed of vide order dated 7.12.1994 (Annexure P—3), as no reply was filed by the respondents, with a direction that if the respondents wants this land for widening the road, they should'proceed in accordance with law and should not use high—handed practice. However, the State Government did not issue any renewed lease deed despite they had completed requisite formalities for the some. On the other hand, the petitioners were served with a notice under Section 133 of the C.6. Land Revenue Code, 17959 (for brevity 'Code, 1959') mentioning the petitioners as encroachers, whereas, the petitioners are having permissive possession. However, the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code, 1959 was dropped vide order dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure P-4). W.P. (c) No.1676/O9 was again filed by the other similarly situated inhabitants of the locality and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9.2.2009 (Annexure P-5). In pursuance of the order dated 9.2.2009 a notice under Sections 322 & 323 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘Act, 1956‘) was issued to the petitioners, which was never served on the petitioners and the same was affixed on their boundary walls. The petitioners and other traders went to the office of the respondent Municipal Corporation with reply to the said notice,‘however, sinceggno one was prepared to accept the reply, they handed over the same to one Kamaldeep, / Page 5 of 42 Carefaker. However, respondenf No.5 in a mosf aufocr‘m‘ manner demolished The enfire buildings only by giving half— an hour nofice fo ”the occupan‘rs in uf’rer' disregard of fhe rule of law and ignoring earlier profec‘rive order passed by fhis CourT. Wifh fhe above avermen‘rs the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be restrained from disturbing peaceful possession of the petitioners over the Nazul land; declare that the petitioners are in lawful possession over the Nazul land in question; direct the respondent authorities to reconstruct the structure of the petitioners, as it originally existed, at their cost; and further direct them to pay suitable compensation for the acts‘of omission and commission of demolition of structure. It has been further prayed that the petitioners be allowed to carry on the business from the said premises after reconstruction without any interference and in case land is actually required for widening of road, alternate reasonable suitable site be provided. .Case of petitioner namely Jeev Rakhan Pansari (W.P. (c) No.1086/09), in brief, is that he is running a betel shop and general stores near Railway Station, Subhash Road, Raipur after purchasing the same from Arun Parmaar and others vide registered sale deed dated 31.3.1999 for a consideration of Rs.90,000/- (Annexure P—Z). His name has been duly mutated in the municipal records (Annexure P-3). He is registered shopkeeper under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 and his registration certificate is Annexure P—4. He has also obtained tobacco license (Annexure P-5). The petitioner ,was served with a notice dated 13.2.2009 (AnnexureiPio) whereby he was asked to vacate 'the said shop within two days, failing which he shall // Page 6 of 42 “WWW“ be removed by The aufhorifies under fhe purporfed exercise of powers under Sections 322 & 323 of ’rhe Acf, 1956 and in pursuance of The said noTice, major portion of fhe shop of The pefifrioner was demolished. Wifh The above avermenTs, The peTiTioner has prayed for a direcTion To The respondenTs To reconsTrucT The sTrucTure of The peTiTioner, as iT originally exisTs, aT Their cosT; To pay suiTable ,compensaTion for Their acTs of omission and commission of demoIiTion of sTrucTure; and To allow The peTiTioner To carry on The business in The said place afTer reconsTrucTion. . Case of The peTiTioners in W.P. (c) No.1574/2009, in brief, is ThaT Their places of business are locaTed on Subhash Marg beTween Subhash Chowk To Telghani Naka. They are in peaceful and seTTled possession of Their respecTive accommodaTIons and earning Their livellhood by runnlng busmess in The said accommodaTions since decades In The year 1976, The Then STaTe GovernmenT issued orders To The peTiTioners To deposiT balance of premium so ThaT formal lease may be granTed and accordingly They deposiTed The amounT and in view of above 'no order was passed by The revenue auThoriTies disTurbing The peaceful possession. However, The STaTe GovernmenT did noT issue or renew The lease deed in favour of The occupanTs Though requisiTe formaliTies were compleTed way back. These peTiTioners have furTher averred ThaT They moved an applicaTion for renewal of lease, however, The concerned auThoriTy did noT pass any order on Their applicaTion for renewal of lease. The revenue officer vide noTice daTed 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-7) direcTed‘ The peTiTion-ers To appear in his office on 12.2.2oo9. 0n 12.2.2009 ih'e peTiTioners moved an applicaTion for renewal of lease, however, The peTiTioners i Page 7 of 42 \\‘ # 3; subsequen‘Hy came To know Thaf ’rheir upplica‘Hon for renewal of lease has been rejec‘red Though fhe same was never communicm‘ed fo 1he pefi'l‘ioner's. AfTer W.P. (c) No.767/2009 was disposed of vide order da’red 9.2.2009, ’rhe respondenf Corporation issued nofice of Annexure P08 under Secfions 322 & 323 of ’rhe Acf, 1956. The same was never served upon The pefifioners and if was affixed on fheir boundary wall. They wenf fo The Municipal office To submi’r Their r'eply, however, The reply (Annexure P-9) was noT accepTed and The same was handed over To The CareTaker of The office. ThereafTer', buildings/ shops of The peTiTioners as well as similarly siTuaTed inhabiTanTs of Subhash Marg were demolished on half-an hour noTice. WiTh The aforesaid avermenTs, The peTiTioners have prayed ThaT respondenTs be direcTed To rehabiliTaTe and compensaTe The peTiTioners for The loss and damages occurred To Them. They have furTher prayed for issuance of wriT of prohibiTion permanenTly resTraining The respondenTs from making any consTrucTion on The demolished properTy unTil & unless The peTiTioners are rehabiliTaTed and duly compensaTed. 5. RespondenT Nos.1 To 3 in Their counTer affidaviT have submiTTed ThaT The peTiTioners are noT lessee as no lease was ever granTed in favour of The peTiTioners by The STaTe/ DeparTmenT of Revenue in respecT of The land over which sTrucTures/shops of The peTiTioners are sTanding. Since There is no lease in favour of The peTiTioners, The quesTion of renewal of lease does noT arise. The peTiTioners are Vencroachers on The aforesaid piece of land as per revenue records available wiTh The respondenTs. EnTire ac‘rion of demoliTion is being underTaken by The respondenT Municipal Page 8 of 42 W Corporafion, *her‘efor'e, defailed para—wise reply f0 The pe‘ri‘rions has no’r been filed by responden‘l‘ No.1 To 3. .Respondenf No.4—Municipal Corpora‘rion, Raipur‘, in ifs common reply To all H1e pefifions sfafed That The pe‘rifioner‘s and ofher shopkeepers are encroachers of The land bearing Khasra No.241 area 7.000 acr-es equivalenf ‘ro 2.88 hecfar'e si’rua‘l’ed a‘r Subhash Marg, Raipur. The pe’rifioners do no’r have any ownership or title of The said land. They do no? have any governmenf lease of fhe said land. The said land is a nazul land and marked as public road in The records of The respondenT corporaTion. As per masTer plan (Revised Raipur DevelopinenT Plan, 2021) (Annexure R-1) prescribed widTh of Subhash Marg is 25 mT. wide. Talks were iniTiaTed by The respondenT-CorporaTion wiTh The help of Local AdminisTraTion wiTh The shopkeepers /inhabiTanTs of Subhash Marg in The monTh of May, 2008. MinuTes of above meeTings have been collectively filed as Annexure R-2. While Talks were going on, The shopkeepers suddenly sTopped aTTending The meeTings when They were asked To produce The documenTs relaTing To TiTle/ ownership of Their respecTive lands. PeTiTioner-PurshoTTam Sareen personally parTicipaTed in The said meeTings. shopkeepers had assured ThaT They shall volunTarily vacaTe Their encroachmenTs/possession. Proceedings under SecTion 133 of The Code, 1959 for removing encroachmenT were iniTiaTed in The monTh of May, 2008 iTself, however, since The land in quesTion is siTuaTed wiThin The urban area and The provision is applicable To The obsTrucTions in road or paTh or public land of village, The proceedings were dropped. EncroachmenTs of The ,peTiTioners ‘are near railway sTaTion which are causing Traffic and hygienic hazards resuITing in severe Page 9 of 42 inconvenience To fhe public a? Iarge and because of fhis The AddiTional Divisional Railway Manager, Raipur vide his communicafion daTed 5.2.2009 (Annexure R-4) requested for removal of encroachments and widening of road opposi’re 1’0 Roipur Roilway Sfafion. The Corporafion was informed by The revenue au’rhorifies vide \Annexure R-5 Tha‘i There is encroachmenf over 2.833 hecfares of land of Khasra No.241 resulfing in obsfrucfion of fhoroughfore. The pefifioners approached fhe Corporafion and requesfed for aHerna’re arrangemen‘i and assured fhaf They shall remove fheir encroachmenTs. Since The peTifioners and ofher similarly siTuaTed persons had no TiTle or ownership of The land in dispuTe, They were served wiTh a noTice under SecTions 322 & 323 of The AcT, 1956 daTed 13.2.2009 (Annexure R—6) and called upon To remove Their encroachmenTs wiThin Two days. NoTice was duly accepTed by Vishal Sareen, son of peTiTioner PurshoTTam Sareen, vide Annexure R—7. On expiry of sTipulaTed period of noTice, The respondenT CorporaTion removed The encroachmenTs of The shopkeepers, who were duly served wiTh The noTice. However, afTer passing of The inTerim order daTed 17.2.2009 by This Hon'ble CourT, demoliTion work was immediaTely sTopped. Thus, demoliTion To The exTenT of 60% of The ToTal sTrucTure has already been compleTed by 17.2.2009. From The documenTs filed by The peTiTioner PurshoTTam Sareen, iT would be evidenT ThaT The properTy in quesTion is shown in The name of Pooja Sareen and There is no documenT To show The TiTle of peTiTioner PurshoTTam Sareen over The sTrucTure as well as land. PurshoTTam ,.$areen has never informed The respondenT CorporaTion ThaT he has applied for Transfer of fresh lease deed in/nS/ I / " Page 10 of 42 W0; favour f0 ’rhe S’rm‘e Government and as such he does nof have any 'h'He or Iegifimafe claim. Orders passed by fhe High Cour? in M.P. No.1231/92 was wifh regard To ’rhen exisfing masTer plan and circumsTances, however, after formafion of The S‘rafe of ChhaHisgarh, new mas’rer plan was brough‘r info force in ’rhe year 2001 and The same was notified in the year 2008 and therefore, the petitioners are not protected by earlier undertaking. From the petitioners' own pleadings it is evident that they were asked to remove the alleged encroachment on the nazul lands much prior to the issuance of notice and as such, they have sufficient knowledge about removal of the structure. Eariier also notices were issued and on their refusal the same were affixed on their respective premises and subsequently written notice was also served. Allegation of violation of the order passed by the High Court is denied. In the written submission filed in W.P. (c) No.1574/2009, the respondent-Corporation has further submitted that on the application of the petitioners for renewal of lease, two separate revenue cases were registered, objections were invited and finally their applications for renewal of lease were rejected on 13.2.2009 by the Nazul Officer. The order sheets have been filed as Annexure R—l. Since the petitioners have not impugned the above order whereby their applications for renewal have been rejected, the same has attained finality. .Respondent No.5 in his separate counter affidavit has submitted that he has no personal grudge either against the petitioners or against anyone and he has acted in accordance with law keeping in view the inconvenience and , problem fac‘ed by the public” at large. Allegation of creating terror or fear has been denied. Allegation of expression of M Page 11 of 42 disrespec’r fowar'ds fhe High CourT's orders has also been cafegorically denied. .Mr‘. B.P. Sharma, Iearned counsel for the pefifioner's vehemenfly argued fhaf fhe respondenf uufhori’ries, in The purported exercise of powers under Sections 322 & 323 of the Ac‘r, 1956, on The prefexf of widening of road resorTed To demolifion of shops of The pefifioners and ofher fraders of The localiTy in a mosT arbiTrary manner, wiThouT following The sTaTuTory provisions of law, in violaTion of The High CourT. As many as 64—65 large buildings & shops have been fully or parTially demolished by The use of 3D machines/ bulldozers. The peTiTioners are in seTTled possession and Their possession in The said premises relaTes To decades back even before coming inTo force of The AboliTion of ProprieTary RighTs AcT. The lands in quesTion were recorded as abadi/mourosi lands in The revenue record. Referring To ParT—IV, Sr. No.1 of The Revenue Book Circulars, iT wos argued ThoT The lands described as 'abadi land' under The Code, 1959 were To be included as Nozul land afTer decloroTion of such villages as Town and The' persons, who are legally occupying such lands by consTrucTing Their dwelling houses, have been declared os Bhumiswamis of The Nazul land. The AcT, 1956 came inTo force in The ciTy of Raipur only on 26.8.1967 and Therefore, The persons in possession of The lands prior To coming inTo force of The AcT, 1956 cannoT be TreaTed as illegal, Trespassers and encroachers as The laws made ThereafTer cannoT be applled To such persons reTrospecTIvely The occupanTs of The area were given Bhumiswaml righTs They were also asked To depOSIT ‘ premium eTc. for granTing formal documenTs for Their " Page 12 of 42 possession in ’rhe shape of lease deeds efc. and in some cases Iease deeds have olso been execufed. The pe'rifioner's have enfer‘ed in'ro various fransac‘rions wi'rh regard f0 The said properfy and regisfered deeds have been filed fo demons’rrafe fha‘r fhey are in se‘Hled possession. Respondent Corpora‘rion also accorded sanciion 1'0 ‘l'he pe'l‘ii'ioners ‘l’o construcf buildings. Pe'ri‘lion bearing M.P. No.1231/92 was filed by various persons in The High Cour’r of M.P.'and ’rhe‘ same was disposed of vide order da’red 07.12.1994 wi'l’h a direcTion ‘rha? “if fhe respondenfs wam‘ fh/s' /and for widening fhe road, f/vey shau/d proceed in accordance wif/I /aw and shay/d nof use h/‘gnhanded pracfice". AfTer W.P. (c) No.1676/09 was disposed of by This Court on 9.2.2009, a notice dated 13.2.2009 was issued in purported exercise of powers under Sections 322 (Si 323 of the Act, 1956 and the petitioners were called upon to remove their encroachments within two days, failing which the same shall be got removed by the Corporation at their expenses. The notice was deliberately issued on Friday evening, with a direction to remove the encroachments by 15.2.2009 i.e. Sunday, in order to prevent the petitioners from approaching the Court and structures were demolished by the use of 3D machines and bulldozers on Sunday when respondent No.5 personally came with the demolition squad and asked the occupants to vacate the premises within half- an hour. A bare perusal of show cause notice would reveal that it is not a notice but an order of removal of possession. Referring extensively to, various provisions of the ,Act, 1956 it was vehemently argued that Section 322 of the Act, 1956 was not in force prior to 30.5.1994 and in the ’J\ " Page 13 of 42 earlier provisions there is no menfion of any permanent s’rruc‘rur‘e. Since The sfrucfur‘es were in exis’rence on 30.5.1994, The pe’riTioners cunno‘r be proceeded under Section 322 of the Acf, 1956. Even ofherwise, if if is held Thaf new Raipur Developmenf Scheme, 2021 and Section 322 have retrospective operation, then also the petitioners and other similarly situated persons cannot be treated as trespassers or encroachers, as they were accorded due sanction for construction of the structure in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XIV of the Act, 1956. Since the petitioners were granted permission for construction and property tax was recovered from them from time to time, they are entitled to protect their possession on the Principles of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectations. Sub-section (3) of Section 322 of the Act, 1956 empowers the Commissioner to remove any obstruction or encroachment as per Clauses (a) & (b) of sub-section (1) after giving such notice, as may be prescribed, however, no rules/byelaws have been framed by»the respondent Municipal Corporation in this regard and therefore, the respondents were precluded from removing the structure in the absence of any statutory rules. Referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was argued that it is settled law that where any judicial process including quasi—judicial and administrative process, ensues civil consequences, the rule of law of natural justice enshrined in the maxim 'Audi Alfarem Parfem' comes into play. However, in the instant case the petitioners' shops, which were the only source of their ' livelihood, were demolished without affording opportunity of hearing. Requirement of law is not only fulfilling the Page 14 of 42 formalify of nofice buf requiremenf is ‘rhaf ‘rhe fime given for fhe purpose should be adequafe in order 'fo enable The aggrieved persons fo make represenfafion. In The absence of nofice of The kind, fhe ac’rion becomes wholly vifia’red. The arbitrariness in The action of the respondenfs is wrif large, as fhey have acfed highhandedly Land in u‘Her vioIaTion of fhe fundamenfa! and consfifufional righfs of The peTiTioners and Therefore, Technical objecTion'puT forTh by The respondenTs regarding mainTainabiliTy of The wriT peTiTions has no force and The peTiTioners cannoT be relegaTed To pursue Their remedies before The Civil CourT. Repelling The argumenTs of The respondenTs ThaT The impugned noTice under SecTions 322 & 323 of The AcT, 1956 has neiTher been challenged nor been filed, iT was argued ThaT The peTiTions were filed in hoT hosTe as demoliTion was going on and Therefore, The peTiTions cannoT be Thrown away only on This ground since noTice issued by The respondenTs has been filed in oTher wriT peTiTions. Reliance is placed on The judgmenT of Hon'ble Supreme CourT in The maTTer of Canara Bank and oThers Vs. Debasis Das and oTheri; Municipal CorporaTion, Ludhiana Vs. InderjeeT Singhz: Ahmedabad Municipal CorporaTion Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and oThers3: M/s Grewal & AnoTher Vs. Deep Chand Sood and oThers‘ and SmT. Kumari Bai and oThers Vs. STaTe of C.G. andv'oThers5. . On The oTher hand, Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned GovernmenT AdvocaTe for respondenT-STaTe as also Mr. Sanjay K Agarwal wiTh Mr. K. Shakeel, learned counsel for / 1 (2003) 4 scc 557 Z 2008 AIR scw 7127 3 AIR 1997 sc 152 4(2001) 8 SCC 151 ‘5 AIR 2006 CG 52 Page 15 of 42 respondenfs-Corpor'afion in fheir oral arguments as well as in the wriHen submissions submiffed fha'r the MunicipaHfies discharge cons’rifu’rional responsibility under Articie 243W 0f The Consfifufion of India which empowers The STa‘re Legisla'rure To exTend such powers To fhe Corporation To enable fhem To funcfion as ins’rifufion of self-government. I’r has a consii’ru’rional responsibili’ry of urban planning including Town planning, regulaiion of land use and cons’rruc‘tion of building including roads 6i bridges under the 12*“ Schedule of fhe Consfifufion. Referring fo Section 19 of fhe C.G. Nagar Tafha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, if was argued fhaf Raipur Vikas Vozna (Punarviloki?) 2021, (for shor'r ‘Vozna, 2021') was approved by fhe Sfafe Governmenf in exercise of powers conferred under Secfion 19 (1) of the Ac’r, 1973 and ’rhe same was published on 7.4.2008 under Section 19 (4) of The Acf, 1973. In ’rhe said Yozna, the width of Subhash Marg from Gudhiyari Rail Bypass to Railway Station, Raipur has been prescribed as 25 meters. Railway station of the capital city Raipur is classified as "A—l Class" and declared as “model station' of Raipur division. It is imperative to provide adequate passengers amenities like circulating area, adequate lighting during night hours, beautification of