^.f:-R ijop-6 244 M HIGHCQURTOFJUDieATURECHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR DIVISIQN.BENCH CORAM : HON'BL&SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLESHRID.R.DESHMUKH.J. i'.BI WRIT PETITION N0.5802 OF 21)05 m ^ PETITIONER Tej Prakash Chandrakar S/o. B.L. Chandrakar, Aged 29 years, R/o. Ward No, 15, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Ward, Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS '^ w 7. 8. State of Chhattisgarh, j Through : Collecto'r, IMahasamund (C.G.) SuperintendentofPolice, Mahasamund, Dist Mahasamund (C.G^ _ Municipal Council Mahasamund, Through its Chief Municipal Offieer, Mahasamund, Dist - Mahasamund (C^S.) . Reliahce Infocom Limited (A registered cpmpany under the Companies Act 1956) Head OfRoe Block No. G.F.1, Village Meghpai- Padana Taluka Lalpur, Districf Jamnagar(Gujrat), 369280 StateOfflce - 77, Prastianti Tower, M.P. Nagar Zone 2, Bhopal, through itsauthdrized signatory Shri Ramji Singh Thakur, ^ed about 26 years, S/o. Shri B.S. Thakur, Thjrd Story Millennium Plaza, behind Indian Goffee House, Raipur, TahsilandDistt.Raipur(C.G.) SuperintendentRecord;Y Revenue Department, Office of Tahsiiaar, Mahasamynd, Tahsil and Distt. IVIahasamund (C.G^ Sub-Diyisional Officer (Revenue) IVIaBasamynd, Tahsilarid Distt. MaHasamund'(C;G^ Tahsilciar.Mahasamund, Tahsil aria Distt. l\4ahasamund (C.G.) 1 Mr.Djwah,' , •.; ••: :' ' ^ • : :::'', ^ ttsMeafaSwan, l;'l • : : : ,:.:;:;; HalKa NO; 142,^Mghasarnyndj, Tahsili and "Dist. MahasEimiilnd (G1G.) ; i ; aii -)' 11 Paranjpe, learned counse! for the petitioner, Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Isamed Dy. A.G. for the State respondents No. 1,2 and 5 to 7. Mr. B.P. Sharma, Searned counse! for respondent No. 4. 'RITPETITION N0. 6187 OF 200 "T'l Harbansh Sinah S/o Late Rarstjt Sinah. aged about 36 vears, Counciior of No. 9, Mahasamund, resident of near F.C.I. Mahasamund, Tahsi! and District Mahasarnund (CG) V! s^i.ugB £ Chh 2 ff? I, L-Oilecto.r, /Jw-.°^. Superintendent of Poiice, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Municipal Councii Mahasamund, Through its Chief Municipal Officer, Mahasamund, Distrid - Mahasamund f/^ f^ [l-'.u. Reliance !nfocom Limited (A registered company under the Companies Act 1956) .-iead Office ilock No. G.F.1, Viliage h^eahDar Padana Taiuka Lalpur, DisSrict Jamnagar (Gujrat), 369280 State Orfice 77, Prashanti Tower, W.P. Nagar Zone 2, Bhopai, through its authorizeci signatory Shri Ramji Singh Thakur, Aged about 26 years, S/o. Shri B.S. Thakur, 3 Ston/ Miilennium Ptaza, behind 'ndian Coffee House, Raipur, Tahsi! and District Raipur (C.G.) rvsveiiua 'ahsiidar, Mahasamund, Tahsil ai District Mahasamund (CG.) Sub-Divislonai Officer (Revenue) Mahasamund, Tahsil and District. Mahasamund (CG.) Tahsit and District Mahasamund (CG.) Ir. Diwan.Halka Patwari, 142, Mahasamund, Tahsil FViahasamund (CG.) ^^1 -s- Present: Mr. Sun'! Sahu, learned counse! for the petitloner. Mr. V.V.S. !Wurthv. learned Dv. A.G. for the State / i. 1 ,z at /. Ir. B.P. snarma, ies w ifassea on su"' january ^yusj The ro'Sowina oral ordsr of the Court was oassed by AK- CJ 1" these writ Dstitions fi!ed as Public Interest LitiQations. rnainiv i^/o r-Bliefs sr^ souoht. to the Sti tend bearina 'nt Ganjpara scn Adarsh Kanya HJgh School An injunctlon restrainin< constructina the tower in a ! fies to aliot the open Abadi 1198 and 1199 to the Abhyas Kanya Shala ana' :he p!ayground and; ith v f^.e^ ytsv^-' ^-•^^ l^r^ ^&'^\ • SS^y'^i iiiui<=! iL Si Ui not be'onging to It. (2) Opposing the writ petitlons, respondents 1,2 and 5 to 7 have filed reply. RespondenS No. 4 has ateo filed separate repiy. !n para 3 of the repiy, respondents 1, 2,5,6 Si 7, have stated that the 4 respondent is srecting towsr in Khasra No. 1198 and 1199. In 10 of the reply thsrsof, it is quite curiousiy stated that 4 rsspondent have started digging a part of Khasra^No. 1205 purchased by him and not Khasra. Nos. 1198 and 1199. In para 13 of ihe reply, an atfempt is made by ths -fespondents 1,2,5,6 & 7 to show tha{ how the iand over which the 4 respondent has proposed to erect a tower does not form part of Khasra Nos. 1198 and 1199, but, it is a part of Khasra No. 1205. Admittedly; Khasra Nos. 1198 and 1199 js a Government iand. Whether those -4 ^::.^^•^^l^'Wf^:^ MI»aS>'-- ., iands shoutd be made available to the frA'o schools which are said to be GoverRment Schools, It is for the concerned authorities to appreciate the need of the school management and granf the lana required by the schoois. The petitioners who c!aim to be pro bor'o public chsracters have utterly fajled to make out any ground that the State AuthorJties, as a m'atfer of iegal obiigation, should make availabte the land cornprised in Khasra Nos, 1198 and 1199 to the schools. Therefore, that oart ofthe reiief cannof be granted at al!. (3) This takes us to the 2 main relief of injunctlon sought against the 4 respondent restralnlng him from constructing the tower. !t Is quite often said and reiterated that Articte 226 is meant essentially to enforee an estab!ished right and not to establish a riaht. The pleadings of the parties filed in this case would make it abundantly clear that there are many factua! controversies wiSh regard to'the fand In wh.ich the tower is souaht to be erected, the o'.n/nership thereof, on the auestion whether the required licence has been obtained or not etc. This Court cannot be converted into a C-ivl! Court to undertake resoSution of disputed facts. The dispute brought before the Court is not a fit case which couid persuade us to step-in under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution of India and undertake resoiution of the disputed facts. in order to grant relief of injunction in favour of the petitioners, it becomes absoluteiy necessary for the Court to permlt the parties to lead evidence and tender witnesses that may.-be examined by the parties to be cross-examined by each other. if this procedure is not adhered to in adjudication and decision- making, there is every likelihood of failure of justice. The dispute brought before this Court cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits -$~- and counter-affidavits only. Moreover, it needs to be noticed that the petitioners are not ciaiming any reiief to themselves a.nd they have corne to th!s Court as pro bono pub'ic characters. Furthermore, the dispute brought before the Court is a dlspute betv'/een two departments of the State Government. It is for fhe concerned departments to workout a" amicable settlement, appreci^ting the need of the schoo! management for the iand jp Khasra Hos'. 1198 and 1199. It is not that the departments are not in a position to appreciate the need ofthe schoote and do right thin.g for the schools. The Government schools cannot be regarded as orphans whose case should be espoused by persons !ike the petitioners who are said fo be Counsellors. The writ petitions are. f-hgr^fQfQ, dismiss-sd. No costs, ——..-..—. -, Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- DUipRaosahebDeshmukh Judge •^v^ 'A