Smt. Anju Devi Singhania v. RESPQNDENTS

Smt. Anju Devi Singhania W/o. Shri Suresh Kun-iar Singhania Aged about 48 years R/o. Mukdega Road, Lailunga, Tahsil: Lailunga, Dist.: RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department Urban Administration, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raiur The Secretaiy, Department Forest, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur -••^ 'r..'" ^./••'^" ..-• . ^>}-;VV<^""/-:<A ^•^':"...--'\^yy' -""^ <^; .'•y s^''

#3. The Forest Officer, Porest Lailunga Dist.: Raigarh

#4. The Collector, Raigarh, / Dist.: Raigarh (CG).

#5. The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Lailunga, Dist.: Raigam (CGj. 'IT P 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA b HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SS: Hon'bie Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. u. Wnt Petition (Cl No.7620/2011 PETITIQNER Smt. Anju Devi Singhania versus RESPQNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition (0 No.7877/2011 Guiab Rai Singhania Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhatfisgarh and others ADpearance: Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel for the respective petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State. ORAL ORDER (18.04.2012) Petitioners have challenged notice Annexure P-1 issued by Chief Municipai Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Laiiunga on 5/12/2011 in exercise of powers under Section 187 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 read with Section 56 of Land Development Act/Rules 1984. By the said notice petitioners have been directed to submit the house/shop in their record concerning ownership of possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that chailenging the simiiar (2) notice some other resident of the locality had preferred W.P.C. No.7171 /2011 which was disposed of on 1/12/2011 and thereafter the impuaned notice was issued on 5/12/2011 with malafide intention. Shri N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the (3) impugned notice is without jurisdiction; the subject area is within the jurisdiction of forest department, therefore the Chief Municipal Officer has no authority to issue the impugned notice. Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the State would submit that the writ petition fet) involves disputed question of fact and the same has been preferred chalienging the issuance of show cause notice, therefore it is not maintainabte. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without entering into the (5) merits of the case, it is directed that the petitioners shall submit their reply afong with all records available with them with regard to the subject construction within a \-^''period of one month from today and shail also be entitled to raise all the grounds IJt^" 1 2 which are raised in the writ petition, before the Chief Municipal Officer and on such reply being filed, the said authority shall decide the same within a further period of two months in an objective manner and pass a speaking order. Ti!l the speaking order is passed by the Chief Municipal Officer after the reply (6) submitted by the petitioners, they shall not be removed or demoiition of aileged construction shall not take place within the said period. (7) With the above observation, the writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge &ril^