IN THE HI^ffi COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR MISC CIVIL CASE N0. ^^: OF 2005 IN THE MATTER OF: W.P. N0.46^3/2004 BETWEEN: / PETITIONER: / Smt. Asha Gupta^ wife of Shri B.P. Gupta, aged about 61 years, resident ofB-11/5., 5 ^-^kJ^^-'W^-^.V -^-^ *->' ^.^ 7^5 M \ ^•f°'^\'C^L^Indira Nagar, Lucknow, c/o ,>'<^/^^ ..^T:...^""..^ shri RaJ Bahadur Kashyap, •^$^':°3 Adarsh Nagar Bal Vidya Mandir, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT:^ ^l!r!'y?%. ^^^.)' Jj ^x' . '^ ^ ^^y/ 1. Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner, Municipal Raipur. 2. Town Planning Authority (Nagar Nivash Adhikari) Municipal Corporation., Raipur (C.G.). SHEKHAR CHAND SHRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE N0.09/11-14, BUDAPARA, SWAMI VIVEKANAND WARD, RAIPUR. APPICATION FOR CLARIFICATION / MODIFICATION T^ OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2005 XI-HC-22 ^I^C-II Sh^icn 75T ^WW^, ^W[^, f«tdiyy<" [yr'-ra^i; ^.^C\c\}J/9^. «*^^v-*•r»*r»*»/»»^»,W[ 200 f^^' STI^T^T R?Tr^3T1^T Sb^icb^TfN' ^TT^T^<TT^K^rf?cf ^T W^ff ^ffe^ ^TRK ^ ^3Tf^T3TT^T 21.4.2008. Mr. B,P. Sharmo, counsei for This M.C.C. has been preferr^d by applicant herein nameiy Shekhor Chond Shriyastova for cjarjfication of or Kdpur & Qnother for issuance of ^ <sct in accordQnce with provision^ Corporation Act in respect of the ^j+uo+ed at Budapara Ward, Raipur) owner. It was mentioned in that p€| the csppiicont. |der dated 7.1.2(X)5 passed by this Court in W.P. No.4653/04 filed by Smt. A^ha &upta against the Municipa} Corporation, dircction to th^ respond^nt Corporation to of Sections 309 <& 310 of the AAunidpal house bearing Nos. 9/11, 9/12, 9/13 <& 9/13 of which Smt. A^ha &upta cjdmed to be the t-ition thot respondent No.2 vide notice dated 1,5.1993 fi^rved a noticc on the j^etitioner soyinQ thot slnce th^ buildin9 hcs? become dilapidated and unsafe fo demoiished by the petitioner hei^self, failmg which demoiition work will be carriect out by the Municipal Co humcin habitation/ therefore, some may be poration. Copy of the notice was filed a3 Annexure P-3 in that writ petition. Now the appiicant h&rein/M|ho is c!aimin9 to be a tenant 3n that bui!din9, has fiSed this petition^for clQrificjation of that order on the ground that 5mt. A^sha ©uptai$ treatlng the dismii this Court has directed her to dei|nolish the buiidina that is why 5he is entitted to demolish the building. In order to appreciate tt" order in her fQvour and ^he i^ cldming that e point rdsed by learned counsel for the appiicant herein it would be reievc^nt to mention the operative part of the order dQted 712<X)5, which i^ reproduc4d herein below; XI-HC-22 Ni^^n$b^icb 3^r^j^i<n^, ®Tfl^<«o,Rtdt^l^ w ^^K ^ 200 f^[' W^T^T f^H^^TT^T 7^^rf??T $WW^T ^ ,^< r^ ^> ^ ^n^T?;RTTS?K^f^T L "...Sut, in the fir^t in^stonce, re^j^onsibiiity ties on +he shouldeM of the petitioner to demolssh tt notice from the r&spondents Coi act according to the provteions not vacating the building then s^ remedy ovaiiQble to her under t^ Jhe above order was passed wh| icrein thot since the petitioner has r4ceiyed a notice from respondent No.2 for molition of her hou^e then the re^p^n^ibili+y lie^ on her ^houlderd? to coiinply ith the notice or challenge the notjce) thc Court cannot bc sntsppreted lik^ detitioner to demolish the house. Whil lat petjtioner is not entitled for any demolish the buildin9, it was simpl ith the notice received by her jn acco^ TT^erefore, I am of the opinion iy direction to the petitioner, in thc^ lat the petitioner can oct in Qccordaji y the Court to respondent No.2 i.e. uiiding. As such that order is ve^ iarjfication. In view of the above, I do not fi ible to b©di^mi^ed and it i$, accord^ngly, di^mis^ed. chi^f^i41Ti ^i^^T^'te^^R^p: ^^rf^T3TI^T ie buildin9 after receivin9 the •poration. Even she canherself >f the Act and if any tenant is ie js entitled to toke course of telaw." le dismissing the writ petition mentionin9 1 in accordonce with law. The above order thot ony direction hc^ be&n i^sued to th& |e dismissing the petjtion of the petitioner irection by this Court to respondent No2 mentioned that the petitioner can deal -dance with law 1'hat this order wa$ never intended to give case simply the position was made cieor ice with l<w and no direction can be given "own & Country PJanning to dewolish the y ciear and same does not require any nd any substance in this petition, same is Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge