HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETmONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION fCi N0.768 OF 2009 1. Pannalal Pandaya. aged about 80 years, S/o Shri Yadav Lal Pandaya, R/o Gujrat Guest House. Gurudwara Chowk, Station Road. Raipur. District Raipur (CG). 2. Narrottam Patra, S/o Shri Mitai Patra, aged about 40 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, Disfrict Raipur (CG). 3. Ravindra Sinoh. S/o Shri Inder Singh Aahuja, aged about 42 years, Station Road, Raipur, Dlstrict Raipur(CG). 4. Prabhumal Gurukmukh DasKhukreja, S/o Late Shri Ludramal Kukreja, aged about 63 years, R/o Station Road. Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 5. Kishore Aahuja, S/o Late Shri Sunder Das, aged about 44 years, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Oepartment of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. District Collector. District Raipur (CG). 3. Additional Tahsildar, Raipyr. District Raipur (CG). 4. Raipur Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur (Writ petition under Article 22^ of the Constitution of tndia) Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. AQnihofri, J. Present:- Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sunil Otwani and Shri Harsh Wardhan. Advocates for the petitioners. Shri Alok Bakshi. Govt. Advocate for the State/re$pondents No.1to3. Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Shri Kashif Shakeel and Shri Anumeh Shrh/astaw, Advocates for the respondent No.4. ORDER (Passed on this 9m day of February, 2009) r ,,^^-s^',.,. ""i> ..^' ,-^;" •"L" IA.No.3 This is an application for amendment in writ petition. It is ordered, as prayed for. 2) By this petition, the petitioners seek following reliefe: "10.1 To issue a writ resfrajnino the respondents from disturbing peaceful possession ofth^ petitioners herein over the nazul lands. 10.2 To issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to show under what auttionfy they have acted on the aforesaid dates and occasions as stated herein-above and for the threats extended by them to the petitioners herein; 10.3 To issue a writ of Prohibition and Restraint permanently restraining them from putting their above-mentioned threat of demolition in any manner whatsoever; 10.4 To declare that the petitioners are in lawful possession ofthe Nazul Lands in Qyestion and their possession, therefore. cannot be disturbed in any manner by the respondents herein. 10.5 To pass such other order/orders and/or flive such other dlrection/ directions as the justice of the case may demand: and 10.6 To grant full costs of these proceedings to the petitioners and direct the respondents to pay the same besides bearing their own coste in ftlll." 3) On hearing teamed counsel appearing for the parties and eyen otherwise, it is admitted case ftat the land jn dispute is a nazul tand. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Corporation cannot remove the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are encroachers, as it is a nazul land and there was no notice or order by the State Government mentionino that the possession ofthe petitioners is as encroachers. 4) Provision under Sections 305, 306. 307 & 322 of the ChhatBsgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, f956') makes it clear ^^^35 .^^J I, ?aN& ^..w^ '';^:^^^^^p" Gowri that if any part of a buiteling projects beyond the regularlineQf a public street, either as existing or as determined for the fyture or b^yond the front of immediately adjoining buildings the Corporation may give notice to the owner of the properfy to remove the projected partof area or remove the same on payment of compensation. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further suhmite that even for invoking jurisdiction under Sections 305. 306, 307 & 322 of the Act, 1956 there should be proper procedure of law. The respondent Corporation has not taken any steps under provisions of law. 6) Shri Diwakar, tearned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.4/Corporatrion, submits that no steps shall be taken against the petitioners and land in disputed possessed by the petiUoners without foltowing due process of law. 7) In view of the foregoing, the question raised herein cannot be decided at this stage. Accordjngly, the petition stands disposed of. 8) Consequently, interim order passed eariier. jf any, stands discharged and alt the pending applications also stand disposed of. 9) Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties only after incorporating the necessary amendments in the petition. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge