Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kaushlya Thakur vs The State Of H.P. And Ors on 20 December, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 8166 of 2011
Date of Decision: 20.12.2016
______________________________ _________________________
.
[
Kaushlya Thakur ......Petitioner.
Versus
The State of H.P. and Ors. ....Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting1?
For the petitioner: Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate vice counsel.
For the respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Additional Advocate General
rt with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate vice counsel,
for respondent No.3
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:-
" i. That the respondent No.1 be ordered to be directed to remove the unauthorized encroachment being done by the respondent No.3 on the Govt. Land.
ii. That the respondent No.2 be ordered to be directed to order the respondent No. 3 to leave proper setbacks open to the sky in front of the house of the petitioner, remove the unauthorized construction being done by the respondent No.3, restore the path leading to the house of the petitioner and repair the main sewerage line disturbed by the respondent No.3 while making the construction of her house."
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:46:43 :::HCHP -2-2. Petitioner in the instant petition has alleged that respondent No. 3 namely Smt. Barmila while constructing her house on .
khasra No. 3843/2 measuring 04 biswas i.e. 153 sq.mts., has not left any setbacks open to the sky as is required under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (in short "the Act"). Petitioner has further alleged that respondent No. 3 has not left any common path of adjoining to his land, which has disturbed the main sewerage line passing through her plot, as a result of which, great nuisance has been caused to the residents of the vicinity.
rt Since respondent No. 3 has raised construction in deviation of the terms and conditions of the rules contained in the Act, petitioner has prayed for reliefs as reproduced supra.
3. Reliefs claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted in the present petition, however, reply preferred on behalf of respondent No. 1 clearly suggests that respondent No.3 has not encroached upon the Govt. land. Respondent No.1, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade in his reply specifically stated that report was called for, from the field agency, which clearly suggests that respondent No. 3 has not encroached upon any Govt. land and as such, no action is required to be taken against respondent No.3. Similarly, reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation also suggests that factum with regard to violation of site by respondent No.3 could only be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:46:43 :::HCHP -3- ascertained by way of demarcation report, as such, nothing can be said with certainty with regard to surrendering of 3 mts. wide strip of .
land by respondent No.3. However, respondent-Corporation specifically denied that respondent No.3 has not left any setback as alleged in the petition. Moreover, perusal of para -7 of reply filed on behalf of MC, clearly suggests that officials of respondent corporation of visited the spot and issued notice under Section 254(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, to respondent No.3 and as such, nothing more is required to be done at this stage, rt by this Court.
4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid replies having been filed by the respondents, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the matter; however, respondent-Corporation is directed to do the needful, if not already done, in light of the averments contained in para-7 of the petition within a period of six weeks. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to approach appropriate authority in accordance with law, for redressal of her grievance, if she still remains aggrieved. Instant writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
20th December, 2016 ( Sandeep Sharma ),
manjit Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:46:43 :::HCHP