WPC/2265/2012 of Shankar Lal Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 27 December 2012

1. ^

State of Chhattisgarh, through theSecretary,RevenueDepartment,D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur,District Raipur (CG)Secretary,RevenueDepartment,D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur,District Raipur (CG)

2. TheCollector,Janjgir-Champa,District- Janjgir-Champa (CG)TheSub-DivisionalOfficer(Revenue),Sakti,District Janjgir-Champa (CG)Municipal Council, Sakti, through itsChief Municipal Officer, Municipal Officer, Officer,MunicipalCouncil,Sakti,District-Janjgir-Champa (CG) (CG)District- Janjgir-Champa (CG)TheSub-DivisionalOfficer(Revenue),Sakti,District Janjgir-Champa (CG)Municipal Council, Sakti, through itsChief Municipal Officer, Municipal Officer, Officer,MunicipalCouncil,Sakti,District-Janjgir-Champa (CG) (CG)

^"

3.

4. Municipal Council, Sakti, through its€'"Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Officer, Officer,^Council,Sakti,District-Champa (CG) (CG)5.The Tahsildar, Sakti, Tahsildar, Sakti, Sakti, District-Janjgir<Champa (CG)WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTiON OF INDIAl-=;.l- The Tahsildar, Sakti, Tahsildar, Sakti, Sakti, District-Janjgir HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

W.P.(C)No.2265of2012

PetitionerShankar Lal Agrawal

Versus

Respondents

The State of Chhattisgarh and others.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

SB:- HON. SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J.

PRESENT :-Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner.Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State.

ORAL ORDER(27.12.2012)

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner seeks to challenge notice^dated OP.12.2012, directing the petitioner to remove encroachment,failingwhich, the authorities of the Municipal Council, Sakti shallproceed[to][ remove][ the][ encroachment.]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner has not encroached any part of Government land or landin control of Municipal Council and that concerned Municipal Councilismostlikelytoremovehimfrompossessionof theirownland/building.

3. The question as to whether the land occupied by the petitionerbelongs to him or is a part of Government land is a disputed question offact, which cannot be gone into in this writ petition. However, at the sametime, it is also to be seen that if the petitioner is in possession of the^land/building, which belongs to him, he is entitled to be protected in law.Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in following manner:

^-^

^-

£

i.The respondents, more particularly, respondents No.3& 4 shall demarcate the land in possession of the petitioner inhis presence and shall thereafter decide the exact area of landencroached by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.

ii.If the petitioner is found to be in possession of any partof Government land/Municipal land, the respondents shall beentitled to remove the encroachment. However, if the petitionerhas not encroached any part of Government land/Municipalland but the said Municipal Council still needs the area of landfor construction of a road/drain or for any lawful object, ascontemplated under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961(for short 'the Act of i961'), they will be entitled tq regulate lineof building, in terms of Section 184 ofthe Act of 1961.iii.Till the demarcation is made and the petitioner is madeaware of the area of land encroached by him, the petitionershall not be dispossessed from the land in his occupation. Theentireexerciseshallbecompletedbytheconcernedrespondents within a period of 6 weeks from today.iv.Similar view has been taken by this Court in its orderdated11.06.2012in W.P.(C)No.937 of 2012(DevendraKumar Tiwari v.State of Chhattisgarh and others).