'^•M ^e o ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P.NO.»'2^0F2001 GURUBAKSHSINGH CHADDA, son of Shri Sardar ShjS^&sh Singh Chaddha, aged about 55 years, resident of LIG 68 Shailendra Nagar, Raipur. PETITIONER VERSUS 1) RAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION A body Corporate constituted under the relevant provisions of M.P.Municipal Corporation Act. 1956 having its office at Malviya Road, Raipur through the Commissioner of Raipur. 2) THE COMMISSIONER, Raipur Municipal Corporation Raipur. 31 M/s KUKREJA BUILDERS A Partnership firm, duly registered under the relevant provisions of Indian Partnership Act 1932, K.T. Complex, Bajari Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ^^' M ^^ ^^ ^&' ^s>^' ..^ll^ '"'.^"^^•"\ ..<• ^.^•"' RESPONDFNTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1AFOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI PROHIBITIONS ETC. AND/OR FOR ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR/AND DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE QF WRITS. .-._.,^ .^psuRsww«ia».®^^ ^ -r' HIGH COURT OF CHFIATTISGARH » BIIASPUR WRIT PETITION NOo 1186 Of 2001 Smt. Sarla Ben Botak -v~ Raipur Municipal Corporation and Others^ WRIT PETITION N0, 1187 Of 2001 Balbir Singh Chhaddha «v- Raipur Municipal Corporation and Others^ WRIT PETITION N0. 1188 of 2001 Gurbaksh Singh Chaddha wv- RaApur Municipa.t Corporatlon and Others<» CORAM t Hoia'ble Shri W«A, Shishal. C<J« Hon'ble Shra. Fakhruddiri, J« petitioner by Sfari B.P. Sharraa, Adyocate. Respondents No< 1 and 2 by Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Adv^ Respondent NO<» 3 by Shri Prashant Mistara, Advocate^ O R D E R This order shall dispose of W»P< No. 1186/2001, W.P* No. 1187/2001 aad W«P< No* 1188/2001. 2) These three petitions ¥ere filed on 20th «Tuly, 2001 for restraining the Municipal Corporation to demolish the shopssaid to be constructed in contravention of law< In fact, the petitlon^: has stated in para 4 of the petition itself that in the morning of 16th of July,2001 the respondents No» 1 and 2 have started demolishing a triple storled building raised by the respondent Mo< 3 in the year 1999, in a part of whicfa the petitioner 1s carrying on his business after the purchase of a small shop in the said bailding^ ^l -2- 3 ) During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the bxjdLldlng, though constructed Mlegally, has been demoMshed and he is entitled for compeBsation from the Corporation as well as respondent No» 3^ 4) Corporation The respondents/have filed jolnt refcurn in all the three petitions^ The stand of the Corporation is that the constructlon made by respoadent no^ 3 on this area ^as In contraventlon o£ IQLW^ It is stated that on fche basement^ shops were contructed ¥hich ¥BS reserved for parkiing and set-ups werQ not as Mper the map, it ^as also submitted that 2nd and 3rd floor were also not as per the map, it is said that notices were issued to respondent no» 3/builder from time to time» It is stated in return by the Corporation that the constructlon was not made in accordance with the map and building permission. Mere deposit of tax does not mean thafc illegal construction has been condoned, the Revenue Department of the Corporation collects tax on the basis of calculations of contetructed areBtBnd at that time no enqulry is made whether the construction is legal or illegale It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner 1s free to sue the builder for damages<i It 1s further stated that upon serving of notice on the builders, the petitioner and other occupants of the shop came to know that illegal construction is required to be removed end they requested the authorit^ of the ai^l^^H^/respondent to give sufficlent time to remove their goods and belongings^ The ans^ering respondents permitted them to do so and lllegal construction was removed only affcer they vacated the made premises, The petitioner ought to have/dae enquiry ^ ti-^" -3- from the notice of the answerlag respondent and then should have proceeded to purchase the shope Had the petitioner made due and proper enquiry^ he could have come to knox^ that notices have been issued in the past to the builder about illegal and unauthorised construction made^ 5<» Learned counsel for the respondent no» 3 submits that information of notice was glven to the petitioner,, On the other hand, learned counsel for the petition^: submits that no lnformatioi!i was given to him^ He further submits that the petitlon as filed is not maintainable^ He also submits that due information was given to the petitloner regarding deinolifelon and the petitioner also approached the Corporation authorities but in vain, He further submits that the petitlon involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into ^rit jurisdiction^ He submitted that he is not liable for compensatloa^ 6e Having heard the learned counsel for the ^&rtieSa perused the record and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the partiesi it is menifestiy clear that this petition at the behest pf the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact^ Even otherwise, the area in occupation of the petitioner has practically been demolished< 7* Learned counsel for the Corporation coiat^ad^ that the Corporation is entltled to cost of demolitibn^ Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that he is entitled for compensation from CorporatioQ as well as builder^ 9^ The case thas involves determination of rights and liabilit^es inter-se* The rule of prudence pathak/- ^ -4- and caution requires that such dlspute if any may be raised by the parties in duly eonstituted suit• 10. ln the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find the present one to be fit case for exercislng extraordlnary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11» In that.view of the matter^ the petitionsis asscR disposed of<. 12, Counsel fee as per rule if certified, 13* A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P« Mo. 1187/2001 and W.P. No, 1188/2001, Sd/- Chief Justice 25-8-2001 Sd/- Fakhruddih Judge 2~5-8-2001 'f^