NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 878 of 2022

1. Govind Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Biharilal Sharma, Aged About

53 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Bilaigarh, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

2. Gopal Sharma S/o Late Shri Biharilal Sharma, Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Bilaigarh, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

---- Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Nagri Prashasan Avam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Nagri Prashasan Avam Vikas Vibhag, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Bilaigarh, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. A. S. Rajput, counsel for petitioners For State : Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, P.L.

For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board

17.02.2022

1. The petitioners in the present writ petition is aggrieved of Annexure P-

3 dated 02.02.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioners have been asked to remove the boundary wall of the petitioners’ property for the purpose of construction of Gaurav Path.

2. The matter pertains to the land situates at Khasra No.187/1 in Bhookhand No.50, Ward No.3, Nagar Panchayat Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners have Bhoomiswami right over the said property measuring 988 square feet and that the entire construction carried out by the petitioners is strictly within the 988 square feet of land belonging to them. Therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to demolish the property of petitioners for making construction of Gaurav Path on the said property.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, on the other hand, submits that as per his instruction, the construction made by the petitioners is in excess of 988 square feet and that the demolition or removal of structure sought for is only to the excess of 988 square feet over which the petitioners have right. He further submits that the respondents as of now do not intend to encroach upon the private property of the petitioner.

5. Second contention of the respondents is that for the purpose of construction of Gaurav Path, the Merchants Association of the said area have themselves voluntarily provided certain land belonging to them so that the road gets developed.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the same cannot be construed as the right given by petitioners to the respondents for entering into the private property of petitioners.

7. Be that as it may, considering the contention raised by the counsel for respondent no.3 that he has instruction of the demolition of construction or removal of structure being ordered to the extent of an area beyond 988 square feet over which the petitioners have their right, the dispute itself can be resolved if the respondent no.3 and the State authorities are directed to first get the property of petitioners demarcated to the extent of 988 square feet which they own. In the course of demarcation if it is found that there is construction made by the petitioners beyond 988 square feet, in that circumstances the respondents would be at liberty to proceed further with the impugned notice dated 02.02.2022. This in other words means that in the event the petitioners’ construction is falling within 988 square feet of land over which they have the title, in that circumstances the impugned notice Annexure P-3 dated 02.02.2022 would automatically lose its efficacy. Let this exercise be carried out within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy)

Judge Khatai