Judgment · High Court

Avaj Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Fulsingh, age about 30 years Presidi Durga & Dashara Utsav Samits, R/o Birgaon, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) versu! 'i.

#3. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Ministry of Urban Devetopment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) District Coitecfor, District Raipur(C.Q.) Chief Munlcipal Offlcer Municipa! Council Birgaon Tah&D!stt.-Raipur(C.G.) Chairmen Munlcipal Councl! Blrgaon Tah & Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) Mr. S.K. Dadsena, tearned counsel for the petftioner. Mr. San'.Jay S. Agrawal, ieamed Govt. Adv., for the State of Chhattisgarh. <*u on 17"' January, 2C06) The petjtioner is a resident of Birgaon viilaae in Raipur Taluka and Dlstrict. It is that the petitioner Is the Presidenf of Durga & Dashara Utsav Samiti, B.irgaon. Complalning that an area ealied Budhwari Bazar is the area meant for use bv the .oublic ai larae, but, the Munteipal Councii, Birgaon has proposed to construct a commsrciai complex in tha said area has field this writ pstition seeking intervention of the Court. "sywa-ss" - 2~- 026 (2) Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition averm&nts. The petitioner in the first piace has nof produced any proof to show thst Budhwari Bazar is the pubiic utility area. Aifhough m para 6.3 of the wrft petltion, it is stated that under Sectton 282 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, the State Government may by notification reserve an area as pubtic utility area, there is nothing to shovc ttiat the area in Budhwari Bazar is notified to be a pubtic utiiity area by the Government of Chhattisgarh by issuing notification under Section 282 of the Act. If the petitioner has faiied to substantiate' hfe claim that the ares in Budhwari Bazar is pubiic uGlfty area, tt cannot be said that the impugned action of the Munte.'pai Councji, Blrgaon to construct commercfai compiex In tiieir land is ittegal. There is no merst in this wnt petition and it is accordsngly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- \ TbeChiefIustice