&T<Ti<i *?°""'ET'1 ifs^ ?i. ?@K*S '^ H 1 lUN^iK S;Sg?B"S^U^?.ir%E"EiiIT'« r-^S£l^^"°i=Kif8'^{>airSi-ri i 1 s,rs. ^^yaK, ^•,fa?. fV.Pa N0.1&23 O ^'3:S £~ss versu; Amarohand Das, aged sbout 43 years, son or snri uneeman uas jasuja, rssidsnt of Slhaw^ Chowk. Dhamtsh ;.G.) Ths ofChhaaisgarh, Through ths Dlstrict Cof.tector, Dtett. Dhamtarl (C,G.) The' Secrstasy, Department of Public & Vvorks, Dau Kaiyan Slngh Bnawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisi Pubiic s. Works Department Sub Division r^i^^w.^^p: r^!'-^ "M>A^A»/».,-;,-',-^'i. ^ •>, L^iisS'Eii.eiHi Wi?i,i., i»/!!Giitis,£l!!iW.k?.; ^^l^j^t ^^/a^ ^-•rt* ^ ?/^>"^ y I~^ t*\ ^t ?ft'^4'/^ t^tf i'~^1i ?/-*& f H9 i snsiiosr- unsniian, uisn- r^Hs3i"s^i''-'3r: /i^Hh's'H'f'srs'srh'i i-/') iOi i 'iitSit i i-'^'i ii iSiii.it'O^tfai i > / "he Nagar Paiik Parishad Dhamtari, through - the Chief Executive Officsr, Dhamtari (C.G.) Present: Shri V.R. Tiwari. iearn-sd counsei forthe Dentioner. Shri Yashwant Sinoh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. >a« Fin Thte writ oetition !s di'rected aaainst the notice mar.ked as Annexure P/1 produced at page 10 or the material papers dated 07-03-2006, issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pubtic Works Depanment, Sub Division Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, the third respondent herein, aiiegmg that the petiijoner has oncroached a space ad-measuring 28 feet x iOfeet (280 square feet) belonging to t'ne PubHc Vtforks Department which forms part of a pubiic road and directing the petitioner to remove ths Hi&gal Gonstfuction mads bv/ h!m in ths s^ld Diot of Isncf whi'Is BdministsrinQ s threat that if he fails to do so, the authorities vvouid take aD.nroDriate steDS to remove/demoHsh the 'Hena! construction. The petitioner, 't is true, has -a- denied the assenion made in the impugned notice by the third respondem. According to the petitioner, he purchased the subject plot of land under a Registered sale deeds dated 11-09-1989 & 03-07-1989 and since then, he has been in iawfu! possesslon of ths said plot as its absolute owner. (2) rtaving regara' to the pleading of the petitioner and wnat is stated by the ihird respondent in the impugned notice, what arises for decision- making is a factuai controversy. That controvsrsy cannot be resolved in a summary procescl!ng unciei dl3CUt9 bt'OUOht b9fQf9 th9 CoUFt fSistSS tO tt©QT thS SUbfiCt DOt. whsthS!' it is the prdperty of the Public Works Department or property of the Detitioner as ciaimed bv him. Such a disDUte can be resolved on'v bv way of a competent Civll Court. However, it was appeaied to the Court by leamed counsel for the petitioner tnat ihere is immineni danger of demolishing the construction made by him in the subject piot of land and, thsrefore, ths respondent-authorities be prevented from resorting to demoiition for s rea&onabls time so that the petitloner could workout his Iscsi rsmsdi^s bsfors ths iurisdictlonsl Clyil Court. (3) Having heard iearned counsel for the parties, 1 dispose of the writ poiii'on Ciji'^ciiHy ins pQti'cionor sna ?n©rQsponasriX^ 10 msiiii^in s?3i,us-c|uo that obtains as on today with regard to the subject plot of Isnd for a psriod Q? f vs wssks from todsv. Ai! ths ccntsntiGns raissd. bv ths osrtlss In th6 imDusned notlcs and in ths Dleadinss of the Dstitioner are isft ooen to be agitated before the jurisdictionat Clvil Court, in the event of the petitioner institufng a suit for teaal remedy. tn the facts and clrcumstances of the case, tne pariies shail bear their respective costs. (4) Certified copy as per rutes. Sd/- ChiefJustice i-<yA. '\