m c^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WMT PETITION (CI N0. -7393 OF 2011 PETITI^MimiS : /' .'^ ^^ \.-'*'v\^'' .^ ^•y.^ 'XJ'./A; ^ Rajkumar Agrawal S/o Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, aged about 30 years., R/o. Ward No. 8 Sarangarh, Distt.- Raigarh ( C.G.) Sanjay Agrawal S/o Shri Radheshyain Agrawal, aged about 28 years., R/o. Ward No. 8 Sarangarh, Distt.- Raigarh ( C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Nagriya Prashashan, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). Collector, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ^ 4. Nagar Panchayat Sarangarh, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer Sarangarh , Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) L WmT PETITIOIV mmDBR ARTICLBS 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF CTDIA. "^ '^., A ^ HIGHCOURT OF CMHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) N0.7399 OF 201 1 PETITIONERS Rajkumar Agrawal & Another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (Passed on this 8th day of December, 2011) 1. Heard learned counselfortheparties. • 2. By thispetition, the petitioners seek to quash the impugned notice dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.4, i.e. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sarangarh, whereby the petitioners have been asked to remove their structure situated overthe iand in disputed, alleged to have been constructed illegally. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of lease granted to them. Thus, the petitioners cannot be thrown out on the basis of the above notice. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioners have constructed structures on the land in dispute, no permission was required. Thus, the impugned notices may be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that firstly, the lease was not granted in favour ofthe present petitioners who have approached this Court, and secondly, for the purpose of widening of the road, the unauthorized occupation may be clear^d under the provisions of Section 223 of the Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961'). 6. 7. The impugned notice is in accordance with law and valid. Any structure constructed unauthorisedly, cannot get protection on the ground that no permission was required prior to incorporation of Section 223 of the Act, 1961, which was substituted in the year 1994. Be that as it may, this petition involves disputed question of facts firstly in regard to grant of lease and secondly, whether the construction over the di'spute land are authorized or unauthorized. Thus, this Court, in exercise ofits writjurisdictioncannot decide the above stated disputed facts on the basis of averments made in the pleadings. Accordingly, this petition is di'smissed as not maintainable. However, the respondent No. 4 i.e. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sarangarh is directed to take steps in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity, may be two weeks, to the petitioners and after examining the case ofthe petitioners,and pass appropriate order, ifso advised. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge