Bihari Singh Todar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

Heard Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4.

This writ petition was filed praying for the following reliefs:

“10.i That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents authorities to dispossess the respondent no. 5 and 6 from the Government land khasra no. 850 within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.

10.ii That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents authorities to reconstruct the pond (Panre Parain) for using of water to the people of villagers, in the interest of justice.

10.iii That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose suitable cost against the respondent no. 5 and 6 for illegal construction and using themselves, in the interest of justice.

10.iv That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

In the additional reply filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 on 24.11.2022, at paragraphs 3 and 4, it is stated as follows:

“3. That, it is most humbly submitted by the answering respondent that pursuant to demarcation reported dated 21.09.2021 and subsequent order dated 23.09.2021, on the same day eviction notice was served upon respondent no. 6. The copy of the eviction notice dated 23.09.2021 is being marked and annexed as Annexure R-1/4.

That, subsequent to passing of the eviction notice, the respondent no. 6 did not remove the encroachment therefore, the respondent authorities were constrained to remove the encroachment of the private respondents and demolition drive was carried out on 15.11.2021, in the presence of the private respondents and the revenue authorities. The copy of the Panchnama report along with the photographs depicting removal of encroachment are being collectively marked and annexed as Annexure R-1/5 (Colly).”

On the basis of such averments, Mr. Ahluwalia submits that the primary grievance raised by the petitioner in this public interest litigation, has been redressed.

Mr. Maheshwari, while acknowledging that respondents No. 5 and 6 had been evicted, prays for a direction to the respondents authorities to construct boundary walls surrounding the pond. It is also submitted by Mr. Maheshwari that the pond is used for drinking purpose by the villagers.

In the return as well as additional return filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 there is no denial of the allegations made that the water of the pond had been polluted because of deposit of waste materials.

Having regard to the above, while not conceding to the prayer made by Mr. Maheshwari for construction of boundary wall, we direct the respondents authorities to clear the waste materials from the pond.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.