<- . S' . t C?c, Bfiwt^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.CCVNO. 6° 6 & /2oii PETITIONER ••.^ .^m^>- RESPONDENTS 1] 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] Parmanand Public Trust, Durga Mandir Ashram, A Registered Trust under the relevant provisions of Public Trust Act, 1951» through: its Manager namely Mahesh Muni Udasin, S/o. Darshan Muni Udasin, aged about 57 years, R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Durga Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja Municlpal Corporation, Ambikapur, through: its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '^ PETmQN£R HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 6068 OF 2011 Parmanand Pybiic Trust RESPQNDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petitlon underArtide 226 & 227 ofthe Constltufion of India) Sing!e Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:" Shri iVSanoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri y.V.S-Murthy, Dy. Advocate Generai for ths State/ respondents No.1, 2, 5 &6. Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for the respondents No.3 & 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 1 ?8' day of October, 2011) 1. Chaijenge in this petition is to the order/ietter dated 07th October, 2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Commissioner, Municipai Corporation, Ambikapur, whereby, the Commisssoner has directed to remove the constructjon of premlses over the land ofthe petitsoner on or before 17 October, 2011, faiiing which the same wiil be demolished by the Corporation and the expenses incurred in demoiition wiii be recovered from the petitioner. 2. Shri Paranjpe, ieaned counsel appearing for the petltloner submits that the petitioner has aiready made an applioation to the s^unlcspai Corporatjon for compounding the irregularities, if any, done by the petitloner In constmction of the property m dispute. Shri Paranjpe, further submlts that no objection is required from the State Government for whlch the'CoJlector by letter dated 13m March, 2007 (Annexure P-7) has aireadywritteo to the State Government recommending case ofthe petitloner for regylarization. Till date, no communication has been received from the State Government and for want ot no objection certiflcate, the Corporation is not in positlon to consider the applicatlon dated 08{h August, 2011 (Annexure P-16), application received on 07th October, 2011 (Annexure P-17) and other iettere made to the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur. Thus, a dlrectlon may be issued to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner in acoordance wsth law and Issue appropriate certificate on its own merit. Thereafter, the CommissiQner, may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compoundlng and till the necessarv action has been done by the State Government as weiS as Municipai Corporation, no demoiitton of the subject property be done by the Commissioner, jyiunidpai Corporation, Ambikapur, ^p Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents submits that if any recommendatjon made by the Collector for grant of no objection certificate, is pending consideration, the same wiii be considered and appropriate order shall be passed within a period of three weeks, in accordance wth iaw, on its own merit. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Municipai Corporation, Js directed to consider the appiication made bythe petitioner for compounding/ reguianzation ofthe ajleged iliega! construction, it any, in accordance with iav^, on its own merit' !n vlew offoregoing, it would bejust and proper that demoiition shaii not take place till the finai order is passed by the Commissioner, IVIunicipa} Corporation, on the applications of the petitioner for reguiarization /compounding ofthe irregularities, ifany, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No orderasto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ashok