^ ra tiit;..:iaS!s'<i<i&.;, iit^^^S-?^^''' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. NO""^/ 2004 Petitioner ^ ^^y '•^•fy(xv' /M/s Mangilal Pagaria, Builders and ^^^ :^- ..0- ^y. ?<e' ,A o^ ^ '0" Respondents Versus :1. ^ Contractors. A Pirm registered under Indian Partnership Act, Represented through Susheel Chandra Pagaria, Partner, Pagaria House, Near Bus Stand, Jeewan Beema Marg, Pandri, Raipur-fC.G.l. State of Chhattisgarh, , Through The Secretaiy Nagaria Prashashan Avani Paryawaran, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) •-s,ai»^. The Collector, Raipur, Dist : Raipur- (C.G.). The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, DIst : Ralpur- (C.G.) The Joint Director, Town & Country Planning, RDA Building, Sharda Chowk, Raipur-(C.G-) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE QF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI AND^OR FOR ORDERS IN NATURE OF WRITS. XI-HC—78 3?!t?TW K;-il+ Tif 3TR?T »1isR is'^S? ~3^ -^ww^, Qiily'Ko; fsidi-yy.<, ^^...^,^,.|^,.3^94..5^^g 3:n^?rTpHT ('icfi'l°<<Ei) •^ireT'Hitcisnt?! 28-2-2005 position of the constr'ucted bt^ <ftN^I<ft'T iTR^ff ^f t^St <f^^< ^3?RR3Tlt?T Shri Kishore Bhaduri, coun^et for the peTitioner'. Shri 5anjay 5. Agrawat, (So^t. Advocate for respondents No.l, 2 cmd 4. Shri H. B. Agrawal, Sr. ^dvocate wi1+i Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.3. Additiona! return along wifti •t+ie site pian showing the existing Idino has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 to which iearne^ counsel for the petitioner does not wmt to file any reply. I have heard learned couns^l for the parties, iy this writ petition fil^d under Arricle 226/227 of the ConstituTion of India the petitio^er has prayed That rsspondents be direeted not to demolish the bi|ilding constructed by -rfie petitioner for the proposed bus stond. The case of the pet!tione|' is that the petitioner constructed the building as per -rtie site plan ppproved by respondents No.3 and 4 whereas, reply of respondent No.3 is •rtiat The petiTioner has constructed the building in utter ^iohtion of -rfie appr'oved ploin. Learned counsel for re^pondents submifs thct the plan submitted by the petitioner was 4PProvea for construction of 3 biocks 1 "whereas, cn site, +he peTrt'ioner has consTrucTed 5 bioeKS: Tfee ~3"r '*ii<i!ivi'4, y-fll-'-i'iio, teroy 'ffi^i 'w t^iN; ?RT 'D^l%iror ss^f •VR: C^^p) waiwt^iNsii^r _ petitioner has constructed excfess ft. on each flour and even fh^ wide has also been narrowed orl\ blocks and as per the site, biock Nos.4, 5 and 7. Termina for the passengers has not beei and the sams has been ^raferaN iWRff •9 feist •'tte^TC buiiding ad measur-ing 2199,97 sa. road which was To be kept 18 meter laccount of exc®ssconstruction on the elcess construction was aiso found on building which was to be constructed ^ eonstructed as per fhe oipproved pian in a less area Than The stan. constrilcted Whereos, iearned couns4! for -Hie petitionar submits that ail the construction has been made in accordmce with the approved plan. In vtew of -riie above ijacts, disputed questions of fact ar® invoived in this writ petition, uijiich cannot be gone into by mis Court in the writ jurisdiction. The ijroper" remedy for- the petitjoner" is to Tioye fhs civil Court. if so advis^d. At 1tiis stage, ieamed cojjnsel for the petitioner submits that a protsctive s?rder may be 9iyen time in order to enable him to fil On the, other hond, Mj". submits that the petitioner tronsferrino the constructed aiready tronsferred and he h4s agreed to tronsfer o1+ier buildings in favour of the petitioner for so're e ciyi! suit before the civii Court. '. ^grawa!, learned Senior AdvocaTe is creatina third party interest by ildina and in some cases he has iaa^Djda. mav_create furthgc. bpmplications in the matter, thecefor'e, ;RPRj—FS/35C—12/2000—50.000. 's^ -^i^w^, ®ial<H<i<a,fNo^ray an-^T-q^rC^^q; aiita «ilf?:iRT 'ssi sn^r' Sor'yg TOnm^fcT3nt?r 3- ^sifgnaai^i if any protective order is ai'ven petitioner' may aiso be resTra| interest til! the appiication is In the resuit, the wnt pe^ dispuTed guesTion of facts. cyproach the civil Court for is ailowed to move The ciyil directed to maintcin status ouo c| Cer'tified copy as per Ruie^ in favourof the petitioner, thsn the jned from creating any third partv decjded by the trial Court. lition is dismissed as the same involves Houlever, the Detitioner, if so advised, can apprtopriate remedy and three weeks' time Co^srt. Till then.both •i+se parties are i^ exists today. t-C. Bhadoo Judge