'S" VERS RESPONDENT: :t'!'' ?' )F TT1 .'S>^SS_/: -Dr. Shaila Milton Philip W/o Dr. George Philip, aged about 44 years, R/o Shiv Ghat, Koni Road, Purana Sarkanda, Bilaspur C.G. 0 '. State ofC.G. through Secretary, f^j ./] Local Self Government, Mantralaya, ^P^ v^, °^ ^.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ovv WMT PETITION OF INDIA FOR ^^0^^ ,<*,V ^T0 <>v" 2^-Municipal Corporation Bilaspur J~/ t>. through Cominissioner Municipal ^,. Corporation, Bilaspur C.G. NATURE OF y sn^r'?;! 1^R73nt?i w^'gfsn ^- •s^r^nRPT, 's^'yii?, i6«ti"y ^.....^.^-:..^^;^ an^i'^R'iwaftci SB : Hon'bie Shri ivianindra MohAn Shrivastava. J. wqfefijM-WRif •?-fe^•(f^nw ^7 arfitpT SD^T 18-02-2011 Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advlooate along with Shri Shaiiendra Shukla, counsei forthe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dv;ivedi, Deputy Go]vernment Advocate for the State/'respondent No.1. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, couns^ The petitioner has filed this p^ 1 for respondent No.2. •tition forissuance ofdirection to restrain the respondent from interfering with h^r possession over fhe buiiding which was erected and constructed by her |and also to restrain respondents from consfructing drain by damaging the b^iilding or any part ihereof. The case ofthe petitioner is t| as per sanction of map and buiid iat tne petitloner nas constructea a Duiiaing ling permission flranted bv the Municipal Corporation. According to the petitio^er, the construction is in accordance wlth the building permission granted to th|e petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent/Corporation atithorities and Engineers of the Corooration arnved at Tne spot ana startea c| respondeni Corporation intends eitt] srtain activities which indicated that the ler to widen the road or construct drain, putting iime-iine in fhe iand giving ariprehension that respondents may proceed to demolish a part ofstructure ofthe 4uiiding raised bythe petitioner. On the other hand, iearnec} counsel for the resDondenf'CorDoration submitted that though the petitioni construction on one siae, ine constr|uction nas encroacnea upon tne marg'nai open space or ^4 teet, wnicn !s in vid counsel for the respondent aiso subn^ sr v»as graniea Duiiaing permission tor latron 01 tne Duilding permission. Learnea itted that a spot map was prepared by the Sub-Engineer (Annexure R-2/1), whicfi shovi/s that whiie raising construction, the petitioner has vioiated buiiding pemtission. Further submission is fhat even [Tft^ ^Ta^ 311^1 ^iT f?sii?? 3ii^i sh4 ^fit^ \ Seepli ,-y ^ ~TST "i11'4!d'4, s?Ti1ti<lii, ^MI'My hS Wtpaffgitii^i f..B-..:..^^ trte before the respondent couid give this'petition. Learnea counses tor tne consfruction and violation of buiidi petitioner had moved an appiicationj thereafter, another apptication was has not been done. Accordina to tH prepared a map of the spot (Ann) petitioner has in any manner, made| it appears from the pleaditj reaard to the construcfion oflhe DU]| Tiit date, the Corporation has no|l petitioner has also siated that demareation. Under these Ihe case, l deem it expedient to aii case, i-;orporalion intenas to taKe construcf road or drain, touchinfil applicatlon ot tne petrtioner tor Corporation and a fresh, proper der^ as also tne revenue auinorlties petnroner, opportunity to remain in case, on tne Dasis 01 the petitioner, it will De open tor tn^ as may be avaiiabie to her under oft. n()tice to the peiitioner, the petitioner has fiied petit|oner circumsiBnces •*!-'<i<'l4-f ^WciT'^fe1^ <I»1«AK ^sifigiisn^t submitted that the atiegations of making i|ig permission is not correct and infact, the in the year 1999 for proper demareation and ^ubmitted on 15/4/09 for demareation but that oetitioner, the PatVi?ari of the area has also i^xure P/11), which does not show thai the |any iilegal construction. (gs that there is some factuai dispute vnih |ding which has been raised by the petitioner. ndt issued anv notice to the Detitioner. The ]she has moved several applications for ;, without commenting on the merits of ipose off this petition with a direclion that in ^ny adverse action against the petitioner or upon the buiiding of the petitioner, the d^mareation shall be dulv considered by the snall oe maae ana ths Uorporation, make fresh demareation after giving the re^em at the time of demarcation. imlarcation, anv adverse action is taken aaainst petitioner to take recourse to suc'n remedy, iaw. The petition is accordingiy disposed aertiarcation m^y pre^em demlarcati ffle . Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ['qt^^fe^ v