HlOH CQURT 01 -luDiCA.TURE CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR olNULt ocWG'n : Mon'oie snn a.K. StayaK, U.d. yV.r"', l'gO;la3'^tS v^r' &yw £-MJJ-jAy'^^L^ sViUPtSiiir^ja. ^^^cs 'SDOUI .o-s' y^sfs, son of Late Ganni Bhai, resident of Sihavva f '*' ^c ^^l n ??,^ t TA&~?/^ ^.-'^^/t ?h-; 1 ^J ,T^^"^ | l^—^i-n-;^t^M^^t ^•? (C.G.) y^rsus r^.^^g^yi^ysi'^ i & i. •^t.a'CQ OT ^/HH^s.tlsQ^m, 1 fiiOU^n tfiQ District CoHector, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Ths Sscrstsp/, Ospsirtmsnt of Public & VvorKs, uau Kaiyan iiingn ynawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Sub DiViSJCina! Officer, Public Works Deoartment Sub Dh/ision UrStill^lii UiSlt. UilSmiQti ^^?.^.^ 4, T'ne Tahsiidar, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (Chhattssgarh) 5. The Nagar Palik Parishad Dhamtari, rhirAunH -. ?H;^. f.HisS'f i~v^/-i ?fi\/?a i^fi^^y Dnamtari (C.G.) Present: Shri V.R, Tiwari, iearned counsel forthe setitloner. Oh?-t V-E^K^'.""!^ Cl:R'-h Iff,."sr?"i/--^. f^,-\j4 &rs\fr-^-'--,^ ^r H-& Q^f^ OT'iii 'i si&i iv?'sti li; •Oti'yiT, iycaiii^sU' 'JS'i^Vi^ MyV'^i/yi':.? iyi ^? i''^ Olmii.^5. 'RAL ORDER (Passed on OS''" Aori!. 2006) This writ Detltion is directed aaainst the notice marked as Annexure P/1 produced at oage 1 1 of the materiai papers dated 07-03-2006, issued by the Sub Divisjona! Orficer, Pubiic Works Department, Sub Divlsion Dhamtari, Disfrict Dhamtari, the third respondent herein, alleging that the petitioner has encroachsd a spac®ad-measuring 13 feet x 7 feet (91 £i^U3f@ T^^t) DOiOHQiHu 10 tH^ HUDIiC VVOFKS LJQpSrtrTtOHl WHiCH TOTFsiS PSH of a public road and directing ths psctioner to remove the iilega! constructlon jnsd^ bv him In ths sald oiot of land whils sdmiHistsrlnci 3 threat that if he fai!s to do so. the authorities would take aDDro.oriate steDS to remove/demoljsh the il'egai construction. The Detitioner, i? is true, has - -i —o.- denied the assertion made in the impugned notice by the third respondent. According to the petitioner, he purehased ihe subject plot of land under K©QiSLcf©CiBfflic ^^@0 CiGlSCI 1 /-U^"l;7f i anO S!isC^ tHen, HS iiSS DS^H h.1 lawfui pesssssion ofths said plot as its absolute owner. (2) Having to the pieading of the petitioner and what is stated by the third resoondent.in the imougned notice, what arises ror declsion- rnaklna is a. factual controversy. That controversy cannot be resolved in a summary proceed'ng under Artide 226 of the Constitution of india. The uispute brought before the Court i'elates to title of the subject piot, vyhether It !3 TriQ pfOpSi'Ty OT HiQ ; UDiiC vVOiKS USp^iTFil^ni Oi pfvpQjiy OT in© l-l,ffl'H^; -n-rt;r y.'s rti"EEn^fs^ h't? hi?Tt Si i^h '5 Hisni ifs ^SF'E h's rscrilv^H fsnlv hv vjsv It/^Slll.l^l/iiT^i ^lirf T/lto&*I33^^rf ^riiy 1E=?3I< •^%fl^ft J ^ iue i trf y*r-rfi ii^ ^f^ii *drJ^ i^*?*rf^lV^^ Sbrii!JT i^y ^-fiajff' of '3. comDstsnt Civil Court. Howsvsr. It wss SDDS^isd to ths Court bv i^arn^d counssl for ths pstlttonor th^t thsrs is inimlnant d^nQsr of demoiishing the construction made by him in the subject piot of land and, therefore, the respondent-authorities be prevented from resorting to demolition for a reasonabie time so that the petitioner couid workoui his remedies before tne lurisuictional Civil Court. (3) Having heard learnsd counsel for the parties, 1 dispose of the writ pstltion dirscting ths petitloner and the respondents to maintain status-quo thst obtsins s.s on todsv with rsasrd to th9 sub sct Dlot of iand for s D^riod of five weeks from todav. All the contentions raised bv the oarties in the impugned notice and in the pieadlngs of the petitioner are left op.en to be agitated before the jurisdlctional ClvH Court, in the event of the petinoner institutinc) a suit for leaal remedv. |n the facts and circumstances of the CaSQ; th6 p^rtiQ3 Shail bc^i' th^lj' f6Sp§GtiVQCOSte. {^f} Osrtlflsd CQDV ss csr rulss Sd/- Chief Justice fnvijesh